Reincarnation—Fact, Wishful, or Something Else?

There is a grey area between life and death, a conscious-brain and conscious-ness

Some children are remembering past lives of themselves (or others?) with the two most compelling accounts in recent memory being Anne Frank (Barbro Karlén) and pilot James M. Huston Jr.

At 3 years old, James claimed to have been shot down in WWII and told his parents his real name, the ship, the mates, and so on. This persisted so they investigated and found his story contained many obscure facts and corroborations with the deceased man’s living relatives—including old shipmates from the USS Natoma—in the battle of the pacific.

It’s interesting to examine western vs eastern thought on the subject, where westerners turn to reincarnation as a comforting idea but difficult to believe, while the easterner has no trouble believing it but wants to get out of its endless cycles of futility. Funny, really.

So, from where do these past memories arise in these kids? The stories are many, and now with the internet many of the details can be verified using an objective approach.

There is a grey area between life and death, a conscious brain and consciousness. Where do these memories come from? What else could it be? Is everything a cold hard fact, or is there more to it that makes Hebrew religions and hard atheism alike, uncomfortable?

It happens in every culture and even those religions that don’t believe it, are being forced to consider it, like in the story of Marty Martyn.

These two accounts are also covered in depth on Netflix “Surviving Death” episode 6

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs breaking the faith trap.

276 thoughts on “Reincarnation—Fact, Wishful, or Something Else?”

  1. i was just reading this!

    “Everything you have come to identify with as you in this life- is not you. The characteristics, qualities and habits you think of as yourself, your likes dislikes, quirks and compulsions, and every act you have ever engaged in were not done by the Real you. You were never the Doer!

    All you have ever done, along with any quality of the small personality ego-self you falsely identified as you, was the performance of Prakriti’s guna-maya (the 3 qualities operating and creating the illusory temporary hologram-world). At the moment of death in your previous life, your thoughts formed into a cumulative aggregate that generated a direction. This directive force, which is created by your acts in that life and others, moved your Consciousness into the body you currently inhabit.

    Your current corporeal form is the best available correlative frequency of your cumulative thought in the moment of your death. This frequency is described by what we now call DNA. Your personality ego does not reincarnate. The soul transmigrates to a resonance of being that correlates in frequency and thus reflects the threads being pursued by the soul, the Real you. Your ‘now’ body is the perfect expression of your desires (Kama) for better or worse here in Kali Yuga.”

    Liked by 2 people

  2. the way i understand it, it’s not a straight line like a ‘soul’ going from body to another body. that is a rather naive view.
    it’s like, all is a piece of gold, and you take a tiny piece and shape it into an ornament. that ornament would be your vehicle for one lifetime, but… what makes you different than other ornaments?? so, any other ornament, is still the same gold, with same qualities.
    it’s the identification with the body/mind that causes confusion of differences.

    i always wondered why some people remember so called ‘past lives’ and others don’t. best explanation i found was this: “If you had a good, high class birth in a previous life, that can lead to you being haughty in the present life. If you had a meager, low condition, that may cause you to feel incompetent in the present life.” So… what is the use of knowing past lives, when we are all made of the same fabric, and all lives are dream-like, anyway?

    also, reincarnation is not the best word. transmigration is closer to truth. since what comes back is nothing else but desires, ideas, greed, jealousies, pride that we hold on to. those emotions that causes ‘gravity’ and clings. that’s why detachment is SUPERIOR.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Reincarnation—Fact, Wishful, or Something Else?

    I re-read the title of this piece and I was wondering: wishful? Wishful what? Thinking?
    Also, if not fact then what is this ”Something else” you are referring to ?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Some how I missed this comment. I’m going to assume there is no fraud here and everybody is not lying. If you happened to see the bios on these people involved, they weren’t exactly comfortable with reincarnation, considering their upbringing. “Something else” would mean their is no hocus pocus but an explanation why these boys carried the memories of a former human being in their memory banks. How can that be done?
      I think some of Landers research in the creative stream/data stream is a likely explanation (Like Tesla said) but I ask the question because I don’t know. That’s why crowdsourcing ideas is a good idea.
      If you always assume “woo” is make-believe imagination, you would deny that it is real part of the cosmos. It’s as real as an electron. Once it is understood the mystery is solved. No gods or spirits needed. To assume such is a mistake when “god” is ALWAYS an add-on to what we observe or discover.

      Like

      1. If it isn’t ”Fact” then the only ”something else” it can be is not fact?’
        I know what I call something that is not a fact, but what do you call it?

        Like

        1. A fact is consensus. But seeing we all have roughly the same physiology, it would only make sense we see things roughly the same way. Does an octopus see it that way?
          Is an electron a fact or simply consensus based on performance? What I think would be interesting is a world wide site dedicated to thoughts and when they arise. An electrical dna grid or genealogical comparison of ideas and where they came from. The algorithms could sort out the details. I bet you would find there are about 10-20 programs being run all over the world. Repeating, duplicate doppelgängers just outside your degrees of separation. Maybe someday you’ll meet the other Doug? I met mine one day traveling in Utah. She was looking at me funny, and I at her. It was an unusual encounter.

          Like

          1. Actually I think a fact is a fact, Not merely a consensus.
            But you didn’t answer the question.
            If it is ”something else” and not a fact what do you call it?

            Like

            1. Unknown—yet. There are many things people consider facts, like Monotheism, but it is an anchoring bias riddled with contradiction and there is no consensus without belief. A fact would be something that carries no contradiction. Real is only that which is unchanging, like matter (if it really existed) But even that is suspect when broken down. It isn’t really anything more than energy as form. It’s very illusive.

              Like

            2. You used the word fact and the phrase ”or something else” in the same sentence./heading
              If it is not a fact then it cannot be real, so once again what do you call it?

              Like

            3. If it is not a fact then it cannot be real”. This is incorrect. The only thing acceptable to be known is what can be put into words. English requires subject, verb, predicate, which forces (almost) every English speaking person to perceive themselves as a separate entity from the whole. That isn’t how an ecosystem operates.
              We think and perceive linearly, in lines (why school takes so long) which the world is actually non linear. The only thing that is a fact is that you we see a very narrow bandwidth, like a flashlight in the dark, the rest of it isn’t comprehended.

              Like

            4. Evidently it was a good question. That’s why it is a question. Even in science.
              Science is a way to validate predictions so we can navigate the universe we live in. Nothing in science bears the name proven—it bears the name useful and not yet invalidated. It uses two tools—observation and repetition, to come to usefulness.
              But even that changes. I told you what a fact was. Perhaps you missed it?
              A fact would be something that carries no contradiction. Real is only that which is unchanging, like matter (if it really existed) But even that is suspect when broken down”.

              Like

            5. No, Jim, I missed nothing.
              So, once again … if it isn’t a fact what do you call it?
              Perhaps you missed the ‘you’ in that sentence.

              Like

            6. Hypothesis. I thought you could glean that from the explanation. If it’s not fact, it is not yet proven. Like nearly everything else.

              Like

            7. This is a problem. I answered the question. I can explain it for you again, but I can’t understand it for you. It is the thesis of the piece. How hard is this? I know your not that dumb. What is it you’re getting at?
              This is leaning-in to my comments about personality types. I’ve answered sufficiently in several ways that most people would readily get the gist. My hypothesis on that would be it is intentional.

              Like

            8. The point is, you did not use the word hypothesis in the heading. This was either intentional, or, you simply had not considered the word at the time of writing and so wanted to capitalise on the ”Twilight Zone” impression , or it was simply an error that you are now scrabbling to correct.
              Be honest, Jim, how difficult would it have been to simply write hypotheses the first time I asked the question?

              Is your use of the word scientific or non- scientific?
              A straightforward answer will be preferable.

              Like

            9. I thought it was a gimme. Any essay I’ve ever written has a thesis, a premise, an objective, a hypothesis, a question, however you want phrase it. I have never intentionally misled anyone on this blog. Ever! It is interesting though to see the bias of how it is read.
              I have a huge body of work here covering hundreds of topics. Yet this to you seems out of bounds. I don’t hide my thoughts or my ideas. Maybe that’s why I have such a wide variety of commenters?
              It was a question. A Thesis. A hypothesis. A title. You read it how you want to. Nobody else seems to have this problem of interpretation of the question.
              If you’ll notice all of my titles are very short. Some people write the entire blog in the title so it’s bold. Maybe that would clear up your confusion?

              Like

            10. I ask for a straightforward answer and you go all apologist on me.
              Is your use of the word hypothesis in the scientific sense or non-scientific sense.
              The question is straightforward.

              Once again, I would appreciate a straightforward answer.

              Like

            11. The word stand alone. It is neither scientific in nature or mystical.
              hy·poth·e·sis
              /hīˈpäTHəsəs/—
              a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
              The word has no lean the way you are asking.
              I did go on to explain, a data base to track these things would be useful if it could ever be proven.

              Like

            12. The word has no lean the way you are asking.

              Oh, but it does

              Mirriam Webster
              In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice.

              Like

            13. So what is the problem? We’ve had spiritual comments and scientific comments. Seem like everyone gets it but you? Maybe you could provide some input instead of parsing definitions?

              Like

            14. Your comment is on par with a one string banjo.
              See what I mean? Even though there is evidence presented, certain types have automatically discounted everything that isn’t understood. Great minds see it differently.
              I do believe that this is precisely the point where our present way of thinking does need to be amended, perhaps by a bit of blood-transfusion from Eastern thought”—Erwin Schrödinger

              Like

            15. Your hypothesis is on a par with Christian Apologetics. See what I mean?
              There is evidence of the Empty Tomb and yet certain types have automatically discounted everything that isn’t understood.

              Like

            16. Ive concludes nothing at all. You’re reaching. You’ve done this before. You and Ron have both said that atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. This doesn’t require a god and there are modern cases that make it interesting. That’s all.

              Like

            17. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, and nothing else.
              Your continual refusal to acknowledge this is telling.

              Theories’ about the Empty Tomb are also interesting – for a while – and then they just become silly because the real answer is there – right in front of your eyes.

              Like

            18. So without your permission I will not discuss what the other half of the world believes in because it might look like something you’ve conditioned yourself to notice.

              Like

            19. You include so much waffle in much of your comments that I tend to tune out a lot of the white noise.

              Discuss all you like . But when you phrase aspects of your discussion in ways that can be compared with apologists discussing the Empty Tomb for example, then credibility tends to slip sideways.
              That you want to attach extra meanings to atheism, including some sort of personality profiling does not help your case either.

              Like

            20. I haven’t seen the word contradiction, but somehow you have a problem discussing these matters. So what is the problem? Show me where I have erred on one point?
              It’s funny that these ontological problems have baffled the greatest minds in our history, yet your gotcha moment is the empty tomb argument?

              Like

            21. 1.

              Show me where I have erred on one point?

              Atheism.

              The premise of this particular comment thread was to question the word usage in the title.

              It took you .. how many comments? – before you offered the word ‘hypothesis’ as a substitute for ”something else”.

              Anyway, to the body of the post …
              I think Ron expressed it just fine and dandy with this comment:

              Yes, And I have access to the Bible and the Koran, too., but it doesn’t make the claims written within them any more factual or real though — does it?

              Like

            22. It took you how many comments to comprehend the obvious?
              True atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. But the mindset of the atheist typically insists there is nothing real that is “woo”. I say woo is just lack of understanding. It’s all part of the natural world, which is woo all by itself.

              Like

            23. It took you how many comments to comprehend the obvious?

              Haha!
              Sounds like you were schooled in the methods of WLC.

              True atheism

              As opposed to what? Pretend atheism, or ”I’ll be an atheist during the week but I’ll still believe in Jesus at the weekend, ‘cos, y’know … just in case, right?”
              I note that, you do not quite align with Lander7 on the definition of atheism?

              But the mindset of the atheist … etc

              Oh, really? Then you must know a shit load of atheists to make such a sweeping generalisation, Mister Jim.

              Like

            24. Here again, this isn’t the first time you’ve blown up a comment section trying to get me, when you may be debunking reincarnation and mysticism. I presented some claims. I reasoned like one may reason about it and all I get is crap from you. I wonder why you are so hell bent on proving I am a believer? I can role play many roles my friend, knowing both sides pretty well. Maybe you could hone your argument?
              I know a few atheists. I also know if I’m not aware of it my mind closes down to thinking one knows everything.
              As far as alignment goes, isn’t it odd that all but one atheist (that I can think of here) are politically liberal and anti conservative?

              Like

            25. Trying to ”get you”?
              What an odd turn of phrase.
              Why on earth would I want to ‘get you’, Jim?

              I wonder why you are so hell bent on proving I am a believer?

              I’m not. I merely think you argue/reason like one.

              Maybe you could hone your argument?

              Was I making one? I thought this was what you were doing?

              I know a few atheists.

              That’s nice.

              Re: Alignment.
              Why is it odd that all but one atheist on your thread are anti-conservative?

              Like

            26. Was there a point to this? So you don’t like my style of argument. That is a fine tactic to avoid the questions which I am fully aware you understood, but would rather criticize the writing style. This is a personality type too. That is just like an apologist, btw. Had it happen many times over at the lion. and Spaniard sites back a couple years. Here, nothing at all got addressed by your pretending to not understand how I phrased the question?
              It was a good day nonetheless. At least I got the t&g fir installed on the missus curling.

              Like

            27. You didn’t address a single point in your reply.
              Are you actually reading what I write or just making stuff up as you go along?

              Try answering the relevance of the anti conservative point you made.
              That would be a start.

              Like

            28. Why is it that atheist tend to be liberal? When I deconverted I was certainly no longer conservative. Everything changed and automatically I went to choice B. That’s the trick. That’s the division. We are always given two wrong choices and forced to pick sides—and fight. I have no side any longer at all. I just watch the show. Like the axel watching the wheel go round.
              By not choosing sides you can clearly see the idiocy of both sides. The hypocrisy of both sides. It’s exactly like assessing religion as a non believer.

              Like

            29. I’m surprised you haven’t noticed. I’ll leave it to her/him.
              I had a high school civics teacher that did a test. At the end of the semester everyone had to guess which party he voted for—straight ticket. Everyone guessed he was the same party as them. He was a very good teacher and fair in his assessments, so every one saw him same as them or their family. Maybe a bit true here too?

              Like

            30. Well, unlike you, I was never indoctrinated in the faith, so my politics, what little there is, wouldn’t likely fit your stereotypical mould.
              Maybe some are reacting to the ”breath of fresh air” after so many years of being somewhat controlled by religion?
              You’d know more about this than I would of course.
              But this has nothing to do with what atheism is of. course. You know this, right?

              Like

            31. wouldn’t likely fit your stereotypical mould”. Of course not. It has nothing to do with deconversion. It is just an overwhelming alignment of the “independent” atheist, which is a lack of belief in god, that just so happens to align to a certain ideology. It is one area of two where “sweeping generalities” is a 90% match. But of course there is no correlation to the mindset.

              Like

            32. You’re not making any sense at all. Have you been taking something?
              Go back and re read the last few comments related to your assertions about atheists and liberals/conservatives

              Like

            33. You’re not making any sense at all”—Mel Wild
              You’ve admitted to skimming through the comments. Perhaps that is the problem.

              Liked by 1 person

            34. I read every comment fully except rawgod—after it gets really long.
              First of all, I never lie here or deceive anyone. Just presenting different points of view. I am an atheist but like most here in the western world we know little about the rest of it. It interests me, and it is interesting.

              Like

            35. Just presenting different points of view.

              You purposely chose not to include the observation by a qualified professional, opting for the more sensational approach.

              Like

            36. Not true at all. Would you prefer I open an argument and close it all on my own? Disable the comments?
              I never filter anyone except “militant atheist”. Haven’t seen him for a while. .

              Like

            37. No I did not miss the comment from the professor. His comment is stated clearly. My post was looking for other answers. You seem to have no answer if your own, and that’s fine.

              Like

            38. I suppose you want me to write a 10,000 word essay and cover every detail. Nobody would read it. They barely read these as you so eloquently stated. It took you several days to even read the article.

              Like

            39. It was an interesting story. I have an interest in knowing how things work and why people believe.
              There are many scientists from the golden age that turned to the Upanishads for inspiration. I posted on that philosophy roughly a week ago. Reincarnation is a big part of that culture. When I ran it by my wife she said there was a show about it on Netflix. I watched it, read a few articles and wrote the post. The initial idea came from reading about Erwin Schrödinger and it expanded.
              If you’ve ever noticed, that’s how my blog has been. I post similar themes for a while and when I’m disinterested, I move on.

              Like

  4. As I sit here, reading all this, the newest member of my family, a 7 week old kitten, sat on my chest and started purring. That is reality. All this other stuff, whether argumentative or not, falls by the wayside. The kitten already loves me, and tells me through her purr she likes living with us, and she feels safe with us.
    Listening to all this back-and-forth is so much poppycock.
    Jim, I like your explanation of reincarnation written 14 hours ago, it pretty much mirrors mine. The thing I want to add is the effect of what this style of reincarnation gives to the world, and that is spiritual evolution, an idea I have been writing about for some 50 years. And my understandings of spiritual evolution have themselves evolved over those years. What I call the spirit, for lack of a better word, upon the death of an individual, takes the esoteric understanding of life as gained through living on earth, and passes it on to the oneness of whatever you want to call the cosmic consciousness, though I severely hate that term, because it suggests to so many that there is some kind of authority in life, when there is no authority whatsoever. That cosmic consciousness, whatever you want to call it, is learning as we go along. Life, as we know it, knows nothing more that the collected consciousnesses of all the beings that have ever lived have donated to that consciousness. Take a look at life itself. We started as cells about 4.5 billion years ago, as estimated by scientists. It took over a billion years, they figure, for one-ceĺled organisms to evolve into two-celled organisms, then another 750 million years to advance to three-celled organisms. The more the advances, the shorter the intervals to the next advancement. Instead of just one kind of cell at the start of life, we now have billions of types of cells, quadrillion or more of different groupings of cells, uncountable different species of life, all from one original cell type, if not one particular original cell.
    You can tell me that us physical evolution, and nothing more, things just evolve because they do. But is that rational? I do not think so.
    What is rational to me, and I emphasize to me! is that there is an unseen force driving evolution, and the more that force learns about itself, the quicker it is able to evolve even more. Human life has changed over the millennia it has been around. I don’t have time or space here to trace those changes, but that does not mean they cannot be deduced. We today are nothing like prehistoric humans. And for those of us who have lived 50 years or more, people are not even much like they were just 50 years ago. Some are stilĺ the same, of course, those conservatives among us who refuse to move forward, but many of us need to move forward. But we do not all move forward together, as this very conversation shows. We move forward in all kinds of directions, just like physical evolution does. We try out all kinds of things. Theism, atheism, total oblivion, reincarnation, different philosophies, different religions, whatever you can think of. There is no direction to what we try, no limits to what we can try. But throughout it all we move forward, because we need to, our spirit requires it of us. Improve, advance, progress.
    There are people among us who are satisfied being who they are, happy to carry on without changing. Look at physical evolution, some species are so old and unchanged it seems they are apart from the rest of the species. Sharks and cockroaches to name a few. They persist. Jains, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, they all persist too. The relative newcomers on the block are us, the atheists. Not that atheism has not been around for a long time, but the number of people leaving the ranks of other religions and philosophies to become atheists is very much on the rise.We are the new hope of the spirituality that sustains us, and drives us forward. But we cannot let ourselves get stuck in our ways, or we will become as useless to life as are all those people who are still theists are. They block progress. Unless we learn to adapt, we will become as useless as they seem to us now. Life is changing, and the quicker we are to help those changes come, the better off life will be. Even though we have no idea where we are going, and no guides to show us the way. There can be no guides, if we knew where we are heading, we would already be there. That is why the idea of a God, my apologies to all believers, is so irrational. If God is perfect, what need has he of other lifeforms. He already knows where we should be, why make us get there on our own?
    No, none of that makes sense, none of that is rational! To paraphrase Jefferson Airplane, we are the crown of creation in our own minds, except we were never created, and we are far from the best life is going to come to be.
    We are but one step on the way, but for right now, an important step. If we cannot move past ourselves, we will become the cockroaches of the future, And I don’t think any of us want that!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Sorry I didn’t answer your second question on whether it has eny effect on my life – well not, even though I believe there must be a life after death, that shouldn’t stop me from living my present life to the fullest.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. May be it has more to do with the culture and religion I was brought up with. I have read and heard about so many stories related to reincarnation, most of them are mythological though.

        But what makes me believe in is because I somewhere feel there are so many things in the world which cannot be explained with the help of science. Humankind is still not sure about how and what happens in the bermuda triangle, or it still can’t explain black holes properly. So just because certain hings can’t be explained with help of science doesn’t mean it is false, may be the science we think is highly developed would not be enough to understand certain phenomenonas.

        Also I have read some articles about “out of the body experience ” which some people experience when they are in coma.
        So how’s that possible, I used to wonder, can humans actually have consious even without brain?

        So when I put all this together, I can’t deny the fact that there can be a life after death

        Liked by 2 people

  6. You ask, “Where do these memories come from? What else could it be? Is everything a cold hard fact, or is there more to it that makes Hebrew religions and hard atheism alike, uncomfortable?”
    My answer is easy, I don’t know.
    Given the 7 billion folks walking around today, how many have had such experience? Again, I don’t know. It’s kind of like asking me if I had nuclear weapons on my airplane, “I can neither confirm nor deny.”

    Liked by 2 people

  7. At this point, we have factual data proving people know things that they shouldn’t logically know. At the same time, we have to be honest and say that we simply don’t know, in a factual sense, how they are acquiring the information.

    Thiest and Athiest are only geared for a certain restricted level of response. They are not equipped to contemplate or engage these anomalies. The only two groups equipped to reach into the unknown are scientists and philosophers. They are geared to explore that which is unknown and make it known. They are wired to think about topics that make people on all sides uncomfortable.

    I myself study a great deal of data about such topics and believe I’ve found a pattern that can explain what we are seeing but to be fair I’ve seen enough to know others beat me to the same conclusion. The race now is to find a way to harness it in a practical sense.

    My real fear is that those at the top (the possible 1%) use this as an unsharred technology to stay one step ahead of the rest of us. I can’t prove it (and I’m not trying to) but it seems clear to me that we want the right people to figure this out first rather than those who are more focused on money.

    Just a thought

    Liked by 2 people

    1. This is the type of exploratory answer I was hoping for. There is data floating around and occasionally a child tunes into this data stream, Akasha if you will, and sees backwards or forwards. There’s no super natural about it, it’s just a part of our ability to tap into that creative zone. Things are much stranger than science is willing to tackle. I’d say philosophy and mysticism, someone unafraid to accept the criticism that comes with it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think science wasn’t equipped before but now with quantum mechanics and machine learning science is ready to take a new look into the abyss.

        Like

        1. I would rather a bunch of hippies figures it out. Wait, they likely have over and over and it is readily dismissed. Maybe science will figure it out and sell it to the oil companies?
          I’m not sure the instruments will ever pick this up. Discovering mind with mind, discovering consciousness with consciousness won’t happen. As the guru would say, you have to go out of your mind or empty your mind to see it. But it’s right in front of your face. Space, the background of everything we observe.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. Sure rg. I know you think I favor science, but what I observe is as much a part of the puzzle as what I don’t. I look everywhere for the least contradictory path to knowing. I certainly adhere to what is testable and reason my way to what is not. If you knew a little more about science it wouldn’t bother you at all, it will assist you if what you are believing is real.

              Liked by 1 person

          1. IIRC, the hippies who once chanted “peace, drugs, sex, and rock ‘n roll” all later became yuppies who chanted “Gucci, Rolex, L.L. Bean and 401(k)s”. 🙂

            Liked by 2 people

    2. Thiest and Athiest are only geared for a certain restricted level of response. They are not equipped to contemplate or engage these anomalies. The only two groups equipped to reach into the unknown are scientists and philosophers. They are geared to explore that which is unknown and make it known. They are wired to think about topics that make people on all sides uncomfortable.

      Really? So how would this pan out for a scientist who is an atheist?

      Furthermore, what evidence could a philosopher offer to demonstrate the veracity of claims of reincarnation?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You Asked — “Really? So how would this pan out for a scientist who is an atheist?”

        My Response — The Same way it would pan out for a Theist who is an Atheist.

        Given our past debates it’s come up many times that everyone is an atheist regardless of belief. The argument given is that they put the 1% believed before the 99% not believed.

        So, (to pan it out), everyone is an atheist but not everyone is a scientist.

        You Asked — “Furthermore, what evidence could a philosopher offer to demonstrate the veracity of claims of reincarnation?”

        My Response — A philosophers goal is not to demonstrate the veracity of a claim but rather to explore the possibility of a claim to any given end.

        A good example of this would be Edgar Allan Poe

        He did not seek to predicted the origins of the universe but rather the workings of reality via philosophical contemplation.

        He wrote a 150-page prose poem named “Eureka” that describes an expanding universe that began in “one instantaneous flash” derived from a single “primordial particle.” That’s 80 years before modern science or the big bang.

        Poe also provides the first legitimate solution to Olbers’ paradox, “why, given the vast number of stars in the universe, the night sky is dark”. He explained that light from the expanding universe had not yet reached our solar system. When Edward Robert Harrison published “Darkness at Night” in 1987, he credited “Eureka” as having anticipated his findings.

        Italian astronomer Alberto Cappi speaks of Poe’s prescience, admitting, “It’s surprising that Poe arrived at his dynamically evolving universe because there was no observational or theoretical evidence suggesting such a possibility. No astronomer in Poe’s day could imagine a non-static universe.”

        Philosophers often precede scientist in discovery no matter what the topic.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. My Response — The Same way it would pan out for a Theist who is an Atheist.

          Yes … past debates. I forgot that one has to be very careful how one phrases certain things.
          But you are a Christian are you not?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Asked and answered and remember… I dedicated an entire page just to you and all your repeated question 😉 So feel free to get the answers you already have from there. Or your site where we spent about 50 replies doing the exact same Q/A.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. It was rhetorical, Lander. Keep your hair on. I know you have been washed in the blood of Christ etc etc … you told me (in no uncertain terms).
              And anyone who is daft enough to believe in that hogwash without any evidence to support such a crock, is wide open to believe almost anything.

              Like

      2. Thiest and Athiest are only geared for a certain restricted level of response.
        This is true. Belief and unbelief are really two sides of the same process that produce a bias. Look in your own situation. Even the mere discussion of this nature is “bollocks” and you are hesitant to even look at the data. Like a theist refusing science the same way. I’m not saying your wrong, I’m saying atheism restricts your view in areas of ontology.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. No, it doesn’t. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. and nothing else
          Oh, and I think you’ll find Lander7 is a Christian if I’m not mistaken»?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. He’s a Christian last I checked, but he is open to examine many strangeties, even in his beliefs.
            Certainly atheism is absence of belief in gods, but does that allow you to openly look at data and consider anomalies in the world that don’t fit the cold hard facts of science? Your first comment says no, your not. But because life may be more than meets the eye, does not jump automatically to there being a god, so I’d think you’d be open to explore these oddities in nature to explain how this data changes, or gets into brains across generations of time and distance.
            As much of landers website has researched, some people know things before they happen, sometimes in concert with many others. Inventors have this happen, as well as musicians, writers, etc. when they tap into the creative zone they often creatively write, sometimes at the same time, a future event that they had no idea was not just them being creative. There are other names for it like IIT, but some people like Tesla firmly believed that everything was out there, electrical, and could be accessed. He credited none of his ideas to himself, but to the phenomenon.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. He’s a Christian …

              In all honesty, Jim you really didn’t need to add anything after this.
              I will always consider anomolies.
              I considered the Resurrection of Jesus and rejected it.
              I considered UFO abductions and rejected them.
              I consider a lot of things and some I have accepted and others I have rejected.
              Evidence being the key component.

              Like

            2. In the realm of the blind … the one-eyed man is King.
              Maybe if someone turns up as the Reincarnation of Jesus we could ask them to cure us all?
              On the other hand, why wait? Lander could ask His Nibbs via some prayer!

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Ooh, you are nasty, Ark. But then, I already knew that. Lander 8sjust a person, like you, like Jim, like me. Three of us happen to be atheists. Does that make us better than him. Two of us atheists are willing to include Lander in our conversations. I guess that makes us better than you! At least in your weird way of thinking, wouldn’t you say? I guess you haven’t gotten over your anger for having been brought up xian yet. Where is that anger getting you? What is it doing for you?
              I never got angry about having been brought up xian. What does make me angry, though, is xians praying for my salvation. I have no need of salvation. I cannot be saved, thank god.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Hilarious!

              I love it when former Christians – such as you -assume I am angry because of my assumed former Christian beliefs. And you know the acronym of assume I’m sure?
              It is certainly making one out of you.
              Perhaps you mind cover more ground if you were to ask a question first, hmmm?

              A Christian worldview has a nasty habit of underpinning everything the individual believes. That’s why they have a Christian worldview.
              And anyone who firmly believes the Resurrection tale of the character Jesus of Nazareth is historically reliable is likely to be more susceptible to believe …. well, let’s just say, certain other things.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. Why ever would you assume that I was angry merely from the words I write?

              Did you assume that Sir Anthony Hopkins, for example was a cannibal after watching Silence of the Lambs, or Ken Follett was once a German spy in a past life because his description of German spies is so ‘on the nose’? )

              Oh dear ….

              Like

            6. You use angry words, and yell at people who don’t agree with you. If you walk like a duck, and talk like a duck, you are still an angry person. I hope that quacks you up.

              Silence of the Lambs? Never saw it. Ken Follet? Never heard of him. We obviously do not run in similar circles. In fact, I don’t even run in squares, let alone circles. I like ovals, especially squashed ovals.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. Smile!
              Your impression of me must also have been gleaned from all the conversations we’ve had over drinks in the pub these past five years as well I suppose?

              You’ve never heard of the writer Ken Follett?
              Really?
              Oh well. Yet, ignorance of Follett not withstanding you were still unable to understand the point? Perhaps I should have mentioned a passage in the bible?

              Like

            8. What good would that do? I haven’t read a Bible for nigh on 60 years. I cannot remember the last time I was in a pub. I cannot drink because I am on a medication that if I drink, I will end up in the emergency room. I never liked alcohol as it is. MaryJane I once loved, before it went hydroponic. Nope, been straight since about 1970. Maybe that’s my problem. The second time I dipped my feet into the spiritual pool I scared myself straight. I’m thinking, if I ever get to lay on my deathbed, I might take avid one more time, and die while conscious. Wouldn’t that be a trip!

              Liked by 1 person

            9. Yes .. I did note you mentioned you had dropped a few tabs.
              I wonder if this is part of your problem?

              Like

            10. I have no problem. It is the people who think they can pigeonhole me who have the problem. They confuse LSD with heroin, or cocaine, or even alcohol. Those are body stones. Psychedelics are mind enhancers. A totally different kind of effect.

              Liked by 1 person

            11. Psychedelics are mind enhancers. A totally different kind of effect.

              Indeed! I remember an old girlfriend who was going out with a chap called Carl who worked for the GPO (In England) back in the day. He liked to indulge in LSD from time to time.
              During one of those times he was up a telephone pole fixing a broken cable when for some reason he decided he could fly.
              At such times gravity can be a real bitch, don’t you agree?

              Like

            12. It happens, but his mind was definitely enhanced, you have to admit. It took a strong mind to convince himself he could fly. Nothing like that ever happened to anyone I knew, and I knew a lot of users. What I did see as problematic were people who hsd borderline or full-blown mental health problems, or weak confidence problems. They bordered on mental breakdowns at times, or allowed themselves to give up all control. In contrast, some people actually came out of LSD trips more mentally healthy than anyone could have expected. This is why many psychiatrists are niw experimenting with psychedelics to treat some mental illnesses. I could have told them that 50 years ago, but no one was listening. No one wanted to listen.
              Thank you for starting to open up about yourself. I now know you are from England. In case you missed it I am from Canada. I still fon’t know if you are male, female, or transgender, but having a girlfriend who was going out with a chap points to, but does not affirm, that you are female. Things could be different in England, but girls use the term girlfriend about female friends they are not sexually involved with, while guys will only use the term girlfriend to denote a sexually involvement. Otherwise they use the phrases girl friend, female friend, or something completely different. Even just friends, no gender involved.
              Meanwhile, no idea what the GPO is, though Government Phone Office comes to mind. Am I close?

              Liked by 1 person

            13. After her/his/its last comment, I have no desire to know. I know you mean well, Nan, and Ark might even be a great person under all the anger and bluster, but not once in all our conversations has it/she/he ever said anything that made me want to go look. It would take a damn good reason to make me willing to risk going there.

              Liked by 1 person

            14. As the British would say … HE’s actually a pretty fine bloke. Yes, he does get a bit caustic at times when the topic is religion or things related to. But he’s also quite a nature lover and posts some very interesting pics of “critters” that live on or visit his home property. Of course, it’s entirely your prerogative as to whether you visit or not, but I did want to offer a bit of defense on his behalf.

              Like

            15. Lol. You would defend the devil if he existed. You would probably defend Trump, if you could find an iota of goodness in him. I appreciate that. But in two years of conversations, Ark has never said one nice thing to me that I can remember or even think to remember. And he does it in such a way as to make himself superior to everyone else. No one is superior to anyone. We are just different, and that difference is to be celebrated, not used as a weapon. I tried again today to find a common place of meeting, but again he refused to find one. He adds nothing to my life. And that is the end of it, for now.

              Liked by 1 person

          2. Frustrating — isn’t it? It’s bad enough having to explain the term to theists, but even worse when you have to continue to explain it to atheists.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Atheism is actually more than that as you and Ark are demonstrating. It also appears to be the belief that everything that appears to be magical or mystical is part of believing in god as well, which it isn’t. Because according to Ark and your own words, bollocks, or “magic, or crystals, is all belief in woo. My position is those things are woo, are unexplained parts of our natural world and that’s why I asked, is there any other explanation besides reincarnation?

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Jim, I’m not sure reincarnation is the right word for what happened since most definitions tend to talk about “rebirth.” IOW (according to Wikipedia), “the non-physical essence of a living being begins a new life in a different physical form or body.” Is this what you think happened? Do (reported) memories of someone who has passed actually define a rebirth? What does rebirth mean to you?

              Liked by 1 person

            3. I think I can explain my ideas on this. Buckle up!
              Imagine a person is born and lived 1800-1870. He lives his life and dies. Another person is born in 1900 and lives his life and dies. For the life of me I cannot figure out how the latter is not a continuation of the former.
              People are born and they die. Others are born while others are still living and born after others live. There isn’t really any hocus pocus but this—it’s all connected in every way. Not just the parts you’re accustomed to.
              Whether you are a evolutionist, a scientist, a Hindu or a Buddhist, or even a freethinking non, it actually goes something like this. The Big Bang didn’t “happen”, but is still happening. We are on the fringes of it, way out in space still banging out farther and farther.
              The scientist disavows his connection to this and thinks himself separate from it and examines it as a third party mentality (because of the western mythology we were raised in) but if there is a such thing as mind, it all came from the same event. It’s all one thing and we are all apertures of a single happening.
              So the Hindu or the Buddhist has arrived at this by deduction. Not by belief but by reason. It’s job is to describe what is, not what we wish it to be. They abhor contradiction (although I see a couple) and what is, is all of this is one thing, one mind, one organism, a single event in a continuum that has existed since time immemorial.
              Now in the West people think reincarnation is YOU, being reborn. That isn’t the case. Like I said earlier, at death all perception and memory of the organism shuts off. Very similar to a sound night of sleep. If you never woke up you would never know it. The computer is off! Now talk about emergent properties! This a an earth, a universe that peoples, the same way an apple tree apples or a grape vine grapes. Each new generation is completely unaware of the prior experience. There is no memory except blurred and washed out images, but on occasion the data is concentrated in a single emergence and we think we were that person in a prior life. Not so fast.
              Even the Hindus who believe in reincarnation believe there is only one mind, one god, and there is nothing that is not god (for lack of a better term) we’ll call it IT. Yet they also think they can determine what entity they want to return as. But their own doctrine is at odds with this. It’s all one thing. Every living thing as nerve endings and eyes of the whole.
              So what happens is this. After all the philosophy and hypothesis, all the conjecture and soul searching there is only one conclusion everyone makes when they find the Self—I am that, I am. Everyone is I, and that is not a slip of the language because it is inherent in every creature. They are the center of experience.
              There is a term I like and it should have an opposite. There is emergence and then resorption, ebb and flow, life and death. Nothing that can only happen once can ever happen at all. It’s the way it is.
              You had no consciousness before you were born and YOU, will have none when you die. But the information, the data, the memories of experience are banked in the organism and reused over and over again.
              The whole thing is going to shut down at some point, and like the fossil record shows, hominids are part of this experience.
              There is a Wu Wei saying that I like. “I move, space becomes. Time is established because of my movement”. The universe will stop expanding and collapse, then do it all over again.
              But there is one thing that is philosophically and reasonably undeniable —there are no separate events in nature. There is only one, very complex and continuous happening but we get lost in the morass of thinking we are separate from it because of Christian mythology that pervades even science and the way they approach themselves as insignificant byproduct of minerals and geology, but they are it too—it’s what makes the game worth the candle.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. THANK YOU, Jim! I know you indicated you were going to spend some time with this and I appreciate what you’ve come up with.

              At first reading, this part of your response stood out to me: You had no consciousness before you were born and YOU, will have none when you die. But the information, the data, the memories of experience are banked in the organism and reused over and over again. If you’re defining the “organism” similarly to what I called “the universe” (as I did here: https://jimoeba.wordpress.com/2021/02/27/reincarnation-fact-wishful-or-something-else/#comment-36509), then we might be on a similar track. If not, then I’m not sure we’re on common ground.

              Overall, there was a LOT to assimilate in your comment, so this is all I’m going to say at this point. I may email you if I feel compelled to add more. Either that or you need to start a new post as the comment section here is getting a bit overwhelming and is becoming difficult to maintain the various threads … ❗

              Liked by 1 person

            5. Returning to the past! Wow! Was this only 4 months ago? I somehow missed this long comment of yours, Jim, or maybe the thread is so long I just haven’t read it yet, so let me approach it as if I have never read it, which I don’t think I have (too many senior moments, lol).
              To begin, most of what you say is how I see the universe, just we use different words for some of it. But, on the question of the Big Bang (bang being a slang word for sex in the 60s, the result of which could literally be the sexual process of a sperm entering an egg, and a new universe comes into being multiplying its cells rapidly at first, say 20 billion years or so, them depending on where you are in the universe, seeming to slow down to a crawl, and finally starting to shrink, say a few trillion or quadrillion years, and then it starts to die–the philosophical approach to science) it makes perfect sense. Just, we are not truly able to observe it since we are part of it. We see parts, but we never see the whole. “But if there is such a thing as a mind, it all came from the same event.” My thoughts exactly, except I call that event, and all manifestations coming from it, Life. Life is something, no matter how much scientists try to examine it, is something we are unable to see because we are so much a part of it. We take for granted we are alive, so we do not examine it from the direction that life is more than a process, life itself is a single entity that has discovered a way to break itself into pieces so instead of being just itself, it is capable of approaching itself as other. Whether you have read my following statement before or not, I will repeat this here: knowledge and wisdom cannot be gained by experiencing only yourself, other must be there to mirror similarities–like we are all alive–while experiencing the dissimilarities–we are different beings apart from each other; physically one-celled plant or animal as opposed to quadrillion-celled plant or animal and everything in-between! That is how we learn, and we take it all back to our prime living being that I just designated Life. Life is “all of this… one mind, one organism, a single event in a continuum that has existed since time immemorial.” To combine your word with my word, “IT” = “Life.” To try to clarify, life is a process, but Life is All There Is. Life is the cosmos. This, like Poe predicating the growing universe, is me predicating existence. We, all living beings, not just human beings, are part of the organism that is the cosmos.
              Thus we “find the Self–I am that, I am. Everyone is I, and that is not a slip of the language because it is inherent in every creature.” This concept is one of the things I brought back from my acid adventures. I have tried previously, at times, to express this, but generally it is too esoteric to find a place to say it. You have given me that opportunity here. Thank you.
              “You had no consciousness before you were born and YOU will have none when you die.” If I may, Jim, you have that consciousness, just you do not have the ability to experience it till your material body is developed enough to understand that consciousness, by which time your nurturing environment has built an ego inside you, and that ego is going to try its damnedest to prevent you from realizing it! This is why the Buddhists say you need to overcome your ego in order to understand yourself. I did not overcome my ego, but I did force it into a position where it either worked with my spirit, or it ceased to exist. I have to say it capitulated quite quickly.
              People tell me I use the word ego in a non-Buddhist way. They can think what they want. I use ego in a more-than-Buddhist way. I actually combine Freud with Buddhism to produce a hybrid ego, or at least that is what I think I am doing. So, really, it is the ego that does not exist at birth, but seeing as almost everyone has an ego by the time they are eight or nine (?) it is something that is inherent within us. Ego is actually a protective device for children. If they awake with their spiritual being intact, most would go insane without something to filter that spirituality through. The ego serves that purpose. But by the time the ego is no longer needed, it is so entrenched we believe we are our egos, and that makes it very difficult to overcome them.
              Okay. Rant finished, for now. Comments, if any?

              You asked me once why I seem to fight you, even when you are on my side. I cannot remember how or where I answered that, but believe me, I appreciate that you are a searcher after understanding. Your mind, and even the mind of Alex (Lander), are open to ideas. You do seem to have a bias against drug-induced ideas, but I understand that. If you have never opened yourself to the psychedelic experience, you cannot understand its capabilities. (Listen to Jim Hendrix, Are You Experienced. Then listen to Eric Burdon and the Animals, Yes I Am Experienced. The topic under discussion is acid.) I am not saying you should try acid, for one thing it is no longer produced with all the by-products and catalysts the underground factories used to use, and I have no idea how much those by-product and catalysts affected my experiences. I do know some producers added things like strychnine, and it may be something like that that pushed me over the edge, I do not know. But I do know LSD opened me to my consciousness, if that can be said to be possible. Not my mind, I always had a mind. But my ability to think on levels never before aware of existing. Awareness of being alive beyond the physical plane. Awareness of consciousness itself. I was born with intelligence, not to brag because IQ really means little, but my IQ scared most of my teachers, once they measured it. They treated me differently than they treated other kids, and I wondered why. Anyway, I was not born aware of having awareness. Lots of people are, probably yourself. I was not one of them. But LSD taught me about awareness, and awareness led me to consciousness. To you that may just sound like meaningless words, I don’t know. But they mean everything to me.
              Also, I do not care that next to no one believes my experiences were real–they were real to me, and I am the only one whose opinion matters. But, yes, I fight for acceptance to think the thoughts I think, and I become beligerent when people tell me I cannot think those thoughts. Why do they want to stop me from thinking. That is what I do not understand. But my message has nothing to do with my beliefs, except in that my beliefs frame that message.
              LOOK INSIDE YOURSELF IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE. The answers are inside you. Outside knowledge is not true knowledge, although Science tries to make it true. Facts are meaningless, though I know you like them. Life is not what goes on around you. Life is what happens inside of you.

              Am I contradicting myself? I said earlier that we need “other” to understand ourselves, to learn about ourselves. I think I went so far as to say we cannot learn without “other.” And that is true, until you realize that you are “other,” ego, mind, spirit. Ego drives the bus, mind provides the map of where to go, but spirit is the binding force, the force that drives us to explore new spaces, and learn what is there that can give us progression. The ego is what it is, it cannot learn. The mind can learn, but it cannot always understand. The spirit understands, and makes sense of what is needed to progress. Esoteric, maybe. Woo, assuredly. But real? You bet your damn Life!
              So, once you discover spirit, then you can interact with it. Spirit is you, all else is other.
              And there I will leave this. Take whatever you like from it, if anything at all. You have eternity. I rushed it. And I am glad I did.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I think LIFE is probably the wrong term here because life implies death. Maybe is-ness, what is, when everything ceases but it, is not life because that implies living. When eventually that lies dormant it is only potential until it flickers back on. It is the only thing real. All else is concepts originating from the apertures that don’t remember they are it too.

              Like

            7. Let’s not quibble about whether life must have death to be life. On our plane of existence it is certainly true, we live, we die, etc. But on a higher plane, Life is that which lives. In my understanding, Life is never dormant. Reincarnation is a potentiality, I will concede that, but Life never sleeps. Only the pieces of itself that inhabit physical bodies do that. Since the beginning of life in our universe, there has never been a time when something somewhere has not been alive. That is the Life I am talking about.
              But again, I am constricted by language.

              Like

            8. rawgod, you wrote: But, yes, I fight for acceptance to think the thoughts I think, and I become beligerent when people tell me I cannot think those thoughts.

              Why become belligerent? As you yourself have expressed on several occasions, you are your own person. No one can direct your life unless you want them to. Just because people might disagree with your perspective should not make you angry. As some would say … “Chill, man.” 😎

              Liked by 1 person

            9. Beligerant is just a word, Nan. I know it usually has an idea of anger, but I am more meaning stubborn with force. It takes one helluva lot to make me angry, and the cause is usually connected with stupidity, a la Trump and his followers. But even then, that is more frustration than true anger.
              For 16 years I watched my father express anger, and that scared me to my core. I have no wish to ever scare anyone to their core. My ex-wife told me of one time in almost 20 years together she saw me actually angry, and though I know it happened I was barely conscious of my actions.
              A little girl came into our yard one day to play with our cat Isis who was outside. Instead of approaching slowly, the girl rushed in, and backed Isis into a corner. She reached toward Isis with a sudden movement, and cats don’t like sudden movements. She thought she was being attacked, and she defended herself.She scratched the girl’s arm quite badly, and the girl ran home crying loudly.
              Five minutes later a big brute of a man came flying through our gate with a hammer in his hand. He was going to kill Isis for attacking his daughter. He was probably seeing red, his daughter’s blood. Before he could make it from the gate to where Isis was sitting, apparently I flew out of the door, stood between the man and my cat, grabbed the hammer from his hand, and threatened to use it on him. He had a good four inches and a hundred pounds on me. He started backing up and I kept moving towards him. I have no idea what I was saying, but my ex said I was screaming so loud the whole neighbourhood could hear me. She said my face was so red she thought my blood vessels would burst. The big brute turned tail and ran. He never came back for his hammer.
              This story is to say, in some way I must be like my father, but I do not want to be anything like him. If I can get that angry that I can threaten to kill someone, I need to keep a check on it. I believe myself to be a pacifist, but apparently there is a part of me that is not. I never want to be that person again.
              So, yes, I said belligerant, but I did not mean it physically. I was talking online, where I cannot threaten anyone. Words are just words, with no actions behind them.
              I apologize for making you think I showed anger, that was not my intention.

              Liked by 1 person

            10. No, Jim, atheism means only one thing: a lack of belief in gods; and I refuse to let you smuggle in other non-belief positions under that term. If you’re hell-bent on assigning labels to those who dismiss all the superstitious beliefs as “woo” (your terminology) then call me a scientific materialist — i.e., someone who holds that “physical mater is the only fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestation or results of matter” (Merriam-Webster)

              Like

            11. I’m smuggling nothing. It is a type of personality that’s all or nothing. That’s all. You, Ark, tildeb, all very consistent. It is why you’re an atheist, not the other way around. Mind is an emergent property of geology and minerals. It’s a belief. A mythology. If you’re alive because of them, whose to say you can’t flip that around just as easily? You.
              On the other hand, there is plenty of similar terms like “emergent properties” that are consistent with woo.

              Like

            12. What can I say other than you are factually incorrect? Atheism isn’t a philosophy, or a mythology, or a personality trait, or anything else other than a firm position on the question of god beliefs.

              Like

            13. I see that the personality type is consistent with total unbelief in anything supernatural. Thank you

              Like

            14. Then you see wrong, because I’ve encountered more than my fair share of atheists who subscribe to all kinds of superstitious non-god beliefs.

              Liked by 1 person

            15. Did I miss it, Jim, or was my explanation about cell memory put somewhere else, and not on this list of comments? I could have sworn I put it here, but I don’t see it.
              Reincarnation is an accepted part of life for me, completely natural. Preservation of the ego, or the mind, those things are not natural. But memories at the cell level make sense to me. Cell division by mitosis is completely natural to me. And what is our brain made up of but cells. Why is it so hard to believe brain cells cannot store memories? Ghen, through mitosis, those memories are passed on virtually forever, one cell, two cells, four cells, eight cells, etc ad infinitum.
              Oh well, wherever I put it, you pooh poohed it then. No use thinking you have rethought your position…

              Like

            16. Your cell mitosis comments are still there. It just has too many inconsistencies in it to address them all, unless ALL cells carried ALL memories, like they do the genetic code, your hypothesis doesn’t work. That why I brought up John Wheelers postulation that all electrons were the same electron. Like every Planck wave containing every bit of information. It’s a neat idea, but it fails in too many areas to gain traction, or is unverifiable/i falsifiable

              Like

            17. You forget, I am just theorizing. But really, I started at what I thought was the first comment, and followed it all the way down the list. I never saw that conversation, so thought maybe my memory was leaving my brain cells. Guess I am getting senile after all.

              Liked by 1 person

            18. One thing, cells that once existed as brain cells do not always exist as brain cells. So they might all carry memories, just not readable by non-brain cells. Again, just theorizing.

              Like

            19. Sounds logical, if all your cells were thoroughly burned or baked. But, by the time one is cremated, no matter how, the mind immediately upon death moves from the body and transports the spirit to the pool where all spirits go. But, these words are so inadequate, they bare can describe the process.
              Tell me, do you know of any medical procedures or scientific experiments where living brain cells were injected into a different living brain. Or, for patients who suffer from dementia, if healthy brains cells were taken from the potential patient, cryogenically frozen, and then revived and injected into a diseased brain? If cryogenics really work!
              I am not suggesting these experiments be tried, the ethics would have to be argued for years. But if I suddenly realized I was getting dementia, I would be more than willing to try this. (I do joke about getting dementia, the older I get, but I try to keep my brain working as best I can before that really happens.)

              Like

            20. Yes. One is tempted to ask if the person is , in actual fact, an atheist.
              It reminds me of something Robertson once said in a Utube thing, how he had ”tried to be an theist” as a teenager/young man
              Yes, he really did say this.
              SMH

              Liked by 2 people

            21. What’s worse is there are an awful lot of people who listen to the type of garbage Robertson … and others of his ilk spew out, and merrily nod their heads and say: ”That’s just like me!”
              The real danger of course is that these same half-wits will be so surprised and outraged when some people decide to do some real crazy shit like … oh, I dunno, blow themselves up or fly planes into tall buildings because some Dickwad who claims to be the reincarnation of some prophet or something said it will get them into heaven quicker.
              Nah … that’ll never happen, right?

              Liked by 1 person

            22. You Stated — “Atheism isn’t a philosophy, or a mythology, or a personality trait, or anything else other than a firm position on the question of god beliefs.”

              My Response — The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.

              Some atheists form organizations for the promotion of atheism. Like the “The Atheist Experience” show.

              An organization serves a particular purpose with its own ideology.

              Ideology definition is – a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture.

              Can an atheist organization have an atheistic ideology?

              The show title is “The Atheist Experience”.

              How can the position of a question have an experience?

              Liked by 1 person

            23. It’s true that some atheists form advocacy groups and organizations to promote atheism, and some of those groups have even adopted political causes they’d like to promote in addition to atheism. But there is absolutely no requirement for anyone to join such groups.

              And according to their “About” page:

              The Atheist Experience is a live, weekly call-in show. We invite believers to call to discuss what they believe and why. Non-believers are also welcome, but calls from believers are prioritized.

              https://www.axp.show

              IOW, the stated purpose of their show is to promote dialog between believers and non-believers.

              Liked by 1 person

            24. Your questions went unanswered because they were malformed.

              An ideology is a set of beliefs. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Ergo, saying that a lack of belief is a set of beliefs is an illogical proposition.

              Atheists — i.e. people (who lack belief in gods) — can have experiences, whereas atheism ( a firm position on the question of god beliefs) cannot.

              Understood?

              Liked by 1 person

            25. Which one of the two questions stated that ” lack of belief is a set of beliefs”?

              Q1:
              Can an atheist organization have an atheistic ideology?
              Q2:
              How can the position of a question have an experience?

              Like

            26. So for you my “question” is not seeking it’s natural conclusion, “an answer” but rather is a clear statement taking a position.

              When I ask: “Can an atheist organization have an atheistic ideology?”

              You hear: “Atheism is a set of unstated beliefs and that is a fact.”

              Keeping in mind that in my post I stated this right above the two questions:

              “The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.”

              I find this to be very interesting but I don’t think we should keep going with it, I understand your position.

              Liked by 1 person

            27. No , I abide by the common definition of words and assume that others do likewise, unless they specifically state otherwise.

              An ideology is defined as “a systemic set of ideas or doctrines through which the world is interpreted”. As such, a lack of god beliefs (atheism) is no more an ideology than a lack of beliefs in fairies (afairyism), or leprechauns or Santa Claus (aSantaClausism) — because none of those positions formulates a world view.

              And as already explained, people (including those who join organisations) have experiences; their positions on various matters, OTH, do not.

              Liked by 1 person

            28. Your response is somewhat unclear to me.

              Would it be safe to say that your answer to this question — “Can an atheist organization have an atheistic ideology?” = “No, an atheist organization can never have an atheistic ideology”

              If so I’m fine with that answer but I wanted to be clear on what you are conveying.

              Would it be safe to say that your answer to this question — “How can the position of a question have an experience?” = “It cannot and to state that it does is nonsensical.”

              Very curios about this answer.

              Like

            29. How can a simple “no, I don’t believe proposition X (where X in this case pertains to the existence of gods)” constitute an ideology? If all you know about Ark and I is that neither of us believes in gods, what common ideological position have you established.

              And for the record, I don’t associate with any groups — and especially not groups like Atheism+ and The Atheist Experience which promote political causes having nothing to do with atheism.

              In answer to your second question: yes. TAE is simply the name of a program reflecting the experiences of those who hold no god beliefs. Or at least that was the original intent before they lost the plot.

              Liked by 1 person

            30. Understood, I just wanted to make sure the answer I think you provided matched the examples so I had a clear understanding. Since they are correct I now understand your position, thanks.

              Liked by 1 person

            31. Understood, thanks.

              For me questions are just tools to seek understanding but if you see a question as a statement then I’m ok with that. I don’t have to understand all positions.

              Liked by 1 person

            32. Belief and unbelief are two sides of the same process. They are related. In fact they often behave the same way. Rigid, firm, argumentative, ideological, nationalistic and often hateful in nature.

              Liked by 1 person

            33. No they’re not. They constitute an answer to a proposition (“Do you believe in the existence of gods?”) to which the answer is either one of:

              Yes. I accept that proposition
              No. I do not accept that preposition.

              . . . and nothing further.

              Like

            34. How are the two answers related? Unless the question itself isn’t real, belief and unbelief are two sides of the same idea. Belief and unbelief have the same root “lief” to wish. So if you want to play semantics, one is to wish or hope and one in not to.
              In short, we “believe” (note a root meaning of “belief” is “lief” — which is wishful thinking) what we believe mostly because we have been massively socially/culturally programmed to have these beliefs. … It’s root word “lief” means a preference, desire or wish.

              Like

            35. How does the rejection of a proposition for which there is no accompanying evidence constitute “a wish”, Jim?

              If you claimed your mother is 2,000 years old, would my expression of complete disbelief also be an example of wishful thinking? Or would it be a reasoned response to a statement that runs counter to all prior experience?

              Like

            36. Haha. It’s funny how words change meanings. But really, faith is hope. Do you have hope for an afterlife? You would be unwishful or unhopeful—with just this topic of course.

              Like

            37. I fail to see your point. I don’t currently wish for an afterlife, but even if I did, it would not automatically sway me to adopt belief in its existence. Likewise, I can accept that something is true (ex. that Joe Biden is mentally unfit to be POTUS) while fervently wishing it weren’t so.

              Like

            38. So you’re not abidin’ in the Biden? Me neither.
              Why would you wish it weren’t so? What does it matter when in the end none of it matters? In the rare event we don’t wipe ourselves out, it is nice to be comfortable. But really had I not heard the news I wouldn’t even know there was a new president.

              Like

            39. You’re right. On a cosmological timescale it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. And when it comes to politics and celebrity gossip, ignorance truly is bliss, and tend to lean towards the Thoreauvian ideal of living simply rather than just simply living — if you catch my drift.

              Liked by 1 person

        2. I’m still waiting for this “data” you want us to look at. Thus far all we’ve been given is an unverified/unverifiable claim, in which one of the so-called “facts” (the plane he died on) has been debunked.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. You have access to all the information. He knew the names of his past crew mates, a ship not even you had heard of, the Notoma reunion where he “fooled” through his cunning ploy, even his old shipmates. It’s a long list. We have to break it down but by bit.

            Like

            1. Yes, And I have access to the Bible and the Koran, too., but it doesn’t make the claims written within them any more factual or real though — does it?

              Liked by 2 people

          2. You Stated — “I’m still waiting for this “data” you want us to look at.”

            My Response — What kind of data are you looking for? I may be able to help with that.

            Just out of curiosity, can any data provided change your mind?

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Empirical data, following the scientific method of:

              – Observation
              – Question
              – Hypothesis
              – Experiment
              – Results
              – Conclusion

              https://biologydictionary.net/scientific-method

              Note: Claiming “I had a reincarnation experience” or “Someone I know claims s/he had a reincarnation experience” do not constitute empirical data of an actual reincarnation experience..

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Interesting

              Let’s start with a question related to reincarnation.

              Do you think that information about a person or event exist without any interaction or evidence of the person or event? OR is that impossible?

              Liked by 1 person

            3. To rephrase your question:

              If you are asking me “Do you think a person can intuitively know anything about Abraham Lincoln (i.e., without receiving that information from an outside source)”, then my answer is: “no, I do not”.

              As to whether or not it’s possible, I reserve judgement. But the onus remains with those who making the positive claim (that it’s possible) to present the evidence.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Yes. I remember that post. And I already told you what I thought here:

              https://realitydecoded.blog/2019/09/25/fictional-story-beyond-the-spectrum-predicts-war-with-japan-and-the-atomic-bomb-27-years-before-it-happened/#comment-4927

              To recap, according to the Time Article:

              – “He was someone who wrote about maritime affairs,”

              – “He was an experienced seaman, and he saw ships as getting very large and the possible danger that one of these behemoths would hit an iceberg.”

              – “Robertson’s real-life experiences and knowledge of naval trends probably gave him plenty of material for writing accurately about maritime catastrophe.”

              – “The novel however, doesn’t focus solely on the Titan. ”

              – “After the sinking of the Titanic, Robertson gained great acclaim for being a clairvoyant, a title he denied.

              “No,” he would reply. “I know what I’m writing about, that’s all.”

              Liked by 2 people

            5. You Stated — “Yes. I remember that post. And I already told you what I thought here:”

              My Response — Yes, you said… “Interesting”

              You Stated — “To recap, according to the Time Article:….“He was someone who wrote about maritime affairs”, “an experienced seaman, and he saw ships as getting very large”

              My Response — So given that…., you believe he had enough information to say the name of a future ship 14 years before it was created… where it would sink on the map… the month it would sink… and what caused it to sink?

              I was in the Navy for eight years and not once did we receive training that could allow anyone to predict that level of future knowledge. If we had, we would not have lost so many ships over time for negligent reasons.

              You Stated — “– “After the sinking of the Titanic, Robertson gained great acclaim for being a clairvoyant, a title he denied.”

              My Response — But he also stated, “I do not doubt that it is because all creative workers get into a hypnoid, telepathic and percipient condition, in which, while apparently awake, they are half asleep, and tap, not only the better-informed minds of others but the subliminal realm of unknown facts.”

              Do you also believe what he is saying here?

              Liked by 1 person

            6. “So given that…., you believe he had enough information”

              Yes. I “believe” the author when he says, “I know what I’m writing about, that’s all.” Unlike today, most writers of yesteryear actually made the effort to thoroughly research the topics they were writing about, even when they were writing for fictional purposes.

              “. . . to say the name of a future ship 14 years before it was created”

              Titan is the Latin/Greek word for “person or thing of enormous size or ability” — so it comes as no surprise that it would eventually be used to name a large vessel, both in fiction and in real life.

              “. . . where it would sink on the map… the month it would sink… and what caused it to sink?”

              Many ships have sunk in the Atlantic off the coast of Newfoundland after hitting an iceberg in April (the time of year when they are most prevalent there). It’s about as clairvoyant as writing “a semitrailer will jackknife on an icy freeway in Michigan during a snowstorm in January.”

              Liked by 2 people

            7. You Stated — “Many ships have sunk in the Atlantic off the coast of Newfoundland after hitting an iceberg in April”

              My Response — Isn’t the opposite true. Very few ships have ever hit an iceberg and even fewer sank.

              Where did you get the idea that “Many” ships sunk from iceburgs off the coast of Newfoundland?

              With that aside I see how you view this type of data. Let’s tighten the scope to see how you view more complex data.

              Try This Please:
              Philip K Dick reported that his mind had been invaded by another more rational and organized consciousness. He described it as being insane all of his life and then suddenly becoming sane.

              The new voice in his head revealed to him that his young son had a fatal undiagnosed birth defect. The voice stated that his son needed urgent medical attention or he would die. Together with his wife Teresa, they took their son to the family doctor who heavily resisted testing the child since the test itself was dangerous and there was no sign the child had any defects. Eventually, they were able to force the tests which then confirmed the voice’s diagnosis and the child went into surgery for the overlooked birth defect.

              How was it possible for a book author to know more than doctors about something no one knew about or even felt was a concern?

              Liked by 1 person

            8. “Where did you get the idea that “Many” ships sunk from iceburgs off the coast of Newfoundland?”

              http://www.icedata.ca/Pages/ShipCollisions/ShipCol_OnlineSearch.php

              Search: “Cape Race” (44), “Grand Banks” (25), “Labrador” (29), “Newfoundland” (27) and basically any unnamed latitude between 45N and 56N (not counted)

              Note: while not all of the vessels listed sank, many sustained heavy damage.

              Re: Philip K Dick [citation needed]

              Liked by 2 people

            9. That link you sent shows only 3 ships from 1841 until today. This would not have caused him to think a ship would have sunk there compared to other places in the world.

              This does not seem like the best spot for a sinkable collision for an author to reference.

              Liked by 1 person

            10. Three? Search “sank” and scroll down the list. Well over two dozen vessels went down after hitting an iceberg years before he even wrote the book, and many more have gone down since.

              As to finding a better setting for his adventure, National Geographic reports the following:

              A deep, cold ocean current flows down from the North Pole, around the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to meet the warm Gulf Stream traveling north from the Gulf of Mexico. Called the Labrador Current, it passes by the Arctic’s premier iceberg nursery off the coast of west Greenland. There, icebergs calve in great numbers, breaking off glaciers to float freely in the ocean. They drift northward up the coast until they meet the Labrador, then ride south in huge masses toward Newfoundland. Nowhere else in the world does this much ice intersect major shipping routes. The region deserves its nickname: Iceberg Alley.

              Icebergs, fog, severe storms, and ocean traffic make Iceberg Alley one of the world’s most dangerous shipping areas. Temperature differences between the Labrador Current and the Gulf Stream, up to 68°F (20° C), produce dense fog and unsteady seas.

              The officers of Titanic were well aware of the risks.

              {Emphasis added}

              https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/iceberg-frequency

              Moreover, according to Wikipedia (no citation is given), the New York born author was the son of a Great Lakes ship captain and he himself served as a merchant marine. So assuming that’s true (and probably even if it isn’t), he would have been well aware of these things.

              Liked by 1 person

            11. These explanations are as interesting (or more) as the supra-assertions of a mystery here. I have to say that Ron’s argument here is pretty convincing.

              Like

            12. The map shows zero lost ships but does state that icebergs are in the area but so are many other parts of the ocean and with more density. There is no reason for him to have chosen this area over other if using probability.

              Like

          3. I’ve reviewed all of the data you provided to support the theory that the author had enough information to describe a future event with the level of accuracy shown in his book. I compared it with other sites that map similar data and found some gaps that could indicate a lack of true accuracy for the data you referenced.

            With that said: I think you have a reasonable position, I do not think the data reasonably allows for all the detail he had but it could be argued for a majority of the data.

            I will also note that in this conversation we are not addressing what the author stated directly:

            “As to the motif of my story, I merely tried to write a good story with no idea of being a prophet. But, as in other stories of mine, and in the work of other and better writers, coming discoveries and events have been anticipated. I do not doubt that it is because all creative workers get into a hypnoid, telepathic and percipient condition, in which, while apparently awake, they are half asleep, and tap, not only the better-informed minds of others but the subliminal realm of unknown facts. Some, as you know, believe that in this realm there is no such thing as Time, and the fact that a long dream can occur in an instant of time gives color to it, and partly explains prophecy.”

            I think it’s possible that more is going on here than the pure statistical prediction for fiction, given what the author himself is stating.

            I see that the same type of event described by this author seems to happen to another author “Philip K Dick”

            He had a similar event that indicated that his son needed urgent medical attention or he would die. Together with his wife Teresa, they took their son to the family doctor who heavily resisted testing the child since the test itself was dangerous and there was no sign the child had any defects. Eventually, they were able to force the tests which then confirmed the voice’s diagnosis and the child went into surgery for the overlooked birth defect.

            We may be able to explain one event to a limit but as the events build-up and the probability lowers for a reasonable conclusion do we have the ability to look for something more complex such as the afore mentioned, ” hypnoid, telepathic and percipient condition”?

            Liked by 1 person

  8. I tend to prefer more straightforward replies to such ideas …. and if I were to be asked o respond in a serious fashion I feel fairly certain that my reply would be much like that when asked to offer a similar response to the Raising of Lazarus or Jesus walking on water.
    ”Bollocks!”

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It is interesting to me what lengths one will believe in order to continue existing, like that belief will make a difference when the lights go out. You had unconscious before you were born and will have it again when you die. Like a good night sleep where you never wake up—how would you know?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Exactly. So why concern oneself with such nonsense?
        I might just as well go to church. At least there’s a chance I could nick the coins from the collection plate just for fun.
        Or maybe ask some rather pointed questions?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Well, some people’s hobbies include scouring the internet for horrible pastors and then commenting on their behavior and lies. It makes them feel good. I look for the source of consciousness and behavior and that makes me feel good. I may as well just go to church as read Robertson or Wild and futilely stir their belief pots. Eh?

          Like

        2. Not nonsense, Ark. Just different ways of looking at things. To say it is nonsense is to assert your authority over others. You have no such power!

          Like

            1. I believed what I was told, until it made no sense to believe. No one cared about his character, they only cared about keeping us kids brainwashed.

              Like

            2. I was not talking about his character; the term I used was the character, in reference to him oops sorry … Him – Jesus of Nazareth (AKA God) being a work of narrative fiction.

              until it made no sense to believe

              Are you perhaps applying the same/similar criteria to this topic of reincarnation?

              Like

            3. Nope, I believe in reincarnation because I dipped my spiritual feet in the pool, and then I had to find out what had happened to me.
              I would not call the fiction narrative, as it is totally disjointed, and completely illogical.
              Narrative suggests at least a modicum of regularity, or comprehendibility. The bible has neither.

              Like

            4. Nope, I believe in reincarnation because I dipped my spiritual feet in the pool,

              So , have you remained in the shallow end, and continued to dabble, or did you ever go for a proper swim?

              Illogical yes, disjointed , hmm, I am inclined to disagree.
              A quick Google turned up this ….

              What Are the Characteristics of Literary Fiction?
              Character-focused narratives.
              Ample symbolism, metaphor, and allegory.
              Advanced vocabulary infused with imagery.
              Ambiguous plot points, including even the work’s conclusion.
              Exploration of larger philosophical themes regarding the human condition and the will of nature.

              I reckon the bible pretty much ticks most of these boxes, and with the lead character Yahweh in his Jesus of Nazareth guise I think we have a sure fire winner.

              Like

            5. Wish I had you for an editor, I might have gotten my writing published. But, I think I am actually lucky I did not. Had I been a successful author, I would probably never have had the time to think of all the things I have thought about in my life. I would never have had the chance to become the person I now am. I would never have learned to love myself.
              See what I mean about an Internet conversation? I expose things about myself willingly, which so far in our discussions, you have not done for me. We’ve had run-ins for a couple of years now, but I still don’t know if you are male or female. I suspect the former, but certain phrases you have used make me tend toward the latter. If I can’t pin your gender down, you are not giving me much go on.Maybe I should give you that Capcha test, Are you even human?
              To swim in the shallow end of the pool is to give your spirit to it, and prepare your spiritual self for your next incarnation. Dabbling is impossible, as such. You are either in, or you are out. Time does not exist in the pool, but I doubt my toes even had time to get wet. I rejected death as soon as I realized it was on the menu. Another millisecond and it might have been too late. The second time was even faster. There and gone. But yet, long enough to have absorbed some of what was in the pool. That microsecond, or whatever it was, has taken me over 50 years to unravel, and I doubt I will ever finish that task in this lifetime. But, so it goes…

              Like

            6. I expose things about myself willingly,

              I’m sure there’s law against this somewhere?
              I recommend it’s best you keep your things un-exposed.

              It took the internet for you to love yourself? How much didn’t you love yourself pre-www?

              but I still don’t know if you are male or female.

              I am undecided at the moment but I’m developing an affinity with the late Koko, if that helps?
              Re: the Shallow End.
              Sounds like you never really got over Christianity? May I suggest you invest in a saffron rob and learn to bang the tambourine?

              Like

            7. You certainly read funny. I came to love myself through introspection, learning who I was, changing the things I didn’t like about me. Where did you get Internet from, or is my Spelchek playing games again. I gotta go look. Nope, not Spelchek. The word Internet is in the next paragraph. The loving myself part came from having time to study myself, rather than being a famous author too busy to take time for myself.
              Nope, the late Koko is meaningless to me also. Guess I live a pretty sheltered life these days. With Covid, don’t we all?
              Again, you sure read funny. What have xianity or Jesus Freak Hare Krshnas have to do with a pool of recently deceased spirits returning to a sort of collective consciousness thing? It is 4:00 AM where I live, but I can still write coherently. You are certainly not reading coherently, not in this comment at least.

              Like

            8. Can I ask, Ark, are you an Auk? Or just naturally awk-ward. Just joking. I just wonder if you can carry on a normal internet conversation without asking questions all the time, allowing the other person to see the you you are so skilled at hiding?

              Like

            9. What on earth is it you want to ”see”? Is this interest because you are doing a part-.time psychology class ? Do you have a paper to present at your next Zoom conference ?

              Like

            10. Okay, I admit, I used Zoom once, to test it for my partner’s 81byear-old mother who was being forced to use it by her cancer doctor. They live in different cities. I am not much of a computer person, but I can at least figure out how to use an app if I need to.
              No, I am not psychology student, just someone who eventually likes to know more about the supposed person I am conversing with.

              Like

            11. Romance? As in Roman? Or as in two spirits exchanging niceties. Mysteries negate romance, in my mind. Honesty, and openness, those are the things I build a romance on. As for things Roman, they are the ones partially responsible for the screwed-up world we live in today, along with the Classic Greeks. They ignored spirit, and went in search of materiality. I identify more with Tibet and India, and of course, aboriginal people’s all over the world, being I am half Canadian First Nations.

              Liked by 1 person

            12. Romance? As in Roman?

              Yeah, that’s the bunny!

              being I am half Canadian First Nations.

              Really? Top or bottom half?

              Seriously, I think you should reconsider going back to Jesus. From my side of the keyboard you come across as just the type of material he is looking for.

              Liked by 1 person

            13. Well, where does that put you, Ark? Please go back to being angry, at least then I could relate to you. Telling me I seem xian in any way is about the best way to tell me you have no comprehension of anything, less, you have no ability to comprehend at all.

              Like

  9. I see balance in this world through reincarnation. The same conscious of the same people shared into different lives keep a world in equilibrium. Those different beings from the same conscious forging forward in one world would create harmony to the various parts of history and world. It makes sense to me on an understanding level.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It makes sense to me as well, but what doesn’t is people that think “they” will individually be recycled into another, that the soul is their single entity. That is inconsistent with what we observe.
      Now and then specific incarnations carry a quanta of past experience and we assume “he was” someone else. I think that data is strictly random and carried in higher and lower manifestations in different people.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Have you ever read physicist John Wheelers postulation that all electrons are one electron? It never gained any traction, but it fits this philosophy pretty well considering the electron can be everywhere and nowhere simultaneously.
      You’d have to define and identify spirit for any consideration of it as anything besides your imagination

      Like

      1. Books like that bore me. A whole book on electrons? Spare me.
        I’m still working on the definition of spirit. Life is interfering in my getting that task done.
        Identifying spirit? Might as well ask me to identify God. It has no physical existence. And while billions of people see a god that is not there, almost everyone in this world knows what spirit feels like, to some degree. Even you, Jim, know that feeling, just you might use a different word to describe it. You care about your wife, and your children. That is an expression of spirit. And no one had to tell you to feel as you do, like theists have to be told there is a theity.
        Fight me all you want, you are just fighting yourself.

        Like

        1. You’re explaining the effects of hormones. It’s very testable, these reactions. In other words, take away the hormones and your a lifeless zombie bag of meat.
          The electron should be more interesting to you as it has all the properties and behavior of spirit. I could write a paper on electrons and replace the word electron with spirit and you’d probably not notice a difference. If spirit exists, it is a natural property, not super natural.

          Like

          1. You won’t give up will you, Jim. Hormones certainly produce lust in a male. Hormones may inspire women to love their offspring, seeing how much pain they go through to give birth. But what hormone is going to connect me to an ant, or a moose? Or a dandelion? Try again, Jim.
            Electrons, as far as I can tell, are non-living material. They never change, though their positions in space might change. They are not born, they do jot die.
            But, they are all-pervasive, just like spirit, so it would make some kind of weird science to replace electron with spirit and still make sense, but I bet the reader would get a much different message out of it.
            No matter how thin you want to slice it, spirit, like life, is beyond perception, beyond explanation, but nonetheless real. I’ll give you twenty years. But you will come to see what I see.

            Like

            1. But what hormone is going to connect me to an ant, or a moose? Or a dandelion?”. That good feeling is dopamine. You are rewarding yourself for being a compassionate and earthy person. It makes you feel good. Without that you would be indifferent to all of it. Tildeb has his science doing the same thing. It’s not even remarkable.

              Like

            2. I’m not trying anything. It’s all quite measurable with a basic lab test. Take those away and you’d be a flat zombie with no feelings.

              Like

            3. Take spirit away, and you won’t even be a zombie, just a vegetable, no offence to vegetables. Seems to me you are trying to convince me, which is not possible. Even though I cannot pass it on, I have experience, and that cannot be denied.

              Liked by 1 person

        2. You Stated — “Books like that bore me.”

          My Question — What book excites you?

          You Stated — “Might as well ask me to identify God. It has no physical existence. And while billions of people see a god that is not there, almost everyone in this world knows what spirit feels like”

          My Response — Photons have no physical existence and billions of people see them daily and almost everyone in the world knows what a photon feels like even though they have no mass and no charge. Oo

          https://realitydecoded.blog/2019/10/12/that-force-you-feel-when-pushing-two-magnets-against-each-other-is-light-and-it-doesnt-exist/

          You Stated — “Even you, Jim, know that feeling, just you might use a different word to describe it.”

          My Response — Maybe that’s the answer to your quest of “I’m still working on the definition of spirit”. Maybe it’s hidden in another word.

          Hopefully, you will not fight me on these responses since you will just be fighting yourself. Oo

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Long time no hear from you, Lander.

            1) Nothing really excites me anymore. Partly old age. Partly because I don’t feel highs and lows anymore. I am content to just live out my life being the best person I can be. Having said that, the book I am re-reading right now should be right up your alley. Maybe you already know it, and have discussed it on your blog. But in case you haven’t, in this book, written in 1968 by a British author, a story taking place in 2010, mostly in America, the President of the USA was not only black, but his name was five letters long, with the first four being O-b-a-m and the fifth letter being a vowel, but not an a, an i. President Obami. Coïncidence? Or, what was that word you use? I cannot remember it, but I know you got one.
            The book is the 1968 winner of the Hugo Award for best Science Fiction novel of the year, Stand on Zanzibar, by John Brunner. Maybe he had a direct but fuzzy line to the future. It almost seems like it.
            2) I beg to differ, we do not actually see photons, but we see the effects of masses of them. If one photon flew by your eyes, or even into your eyes, it would not register it. It takes millions of photons for us to see their effect. Photons have no mass. How can we see something with no mass? Air has mass, but we cannot see air. Electrons have mass. We cannot see electrons. We see their accumulative effect, yes. We do not see the items themselves.
            I don’t have the time right now to read about magnets and light, but I think you are helping prove my argument about spirit. No, you cannot see magnetism, but you can certainly feel it. Similarly, you cannot see spirit (that we know of yet, maybe some day we will.) but you can feel its effects.
            Here is an experiment to try. View a spectrograph of a human body. Can we even do such a thing? I presume we can. When that human body dies, make a series of spectrographs at timed intervals, from right after death to a few days after death. Need a body to use? You can have mine, when I am dying. Compare and contrast the graphs of the body, from life to death to after death. Are there any changes? What causes those changes? Are any of the changes unexplainable by normal scientific means. If no, no problem. But if yes, maybe you just found spirit. (I don’t know if it was real or not, but in the days before the Internet, it was rumoured the Russians were experiential on dying or dead bodies. One such experient was rumoured to have discovered that that the body last 5 ounces of weight immediately after death. Could that be our spirits leaving our bodies? Anything is possible.)
            3) If the word is foreign, particularly Sanskrit, it might exist. English is the only ?language I can truly work in. I have been decrying this for years. There is no one word in English that describes what I mean by spirit. There is not even a group word, or string of words. And to invent one would be meaningless, because it would have meaning to only me. So I use spirit, because it at least gives me a word that others can interpret as something akin to what I want it to mean, but it can never be precise. English is a material language, it is not useful for spiritual matters.

            I am not fighting anyone, from my point of view, just like Jim does not see himself as fighting me, from his point of view. But when two or more people cannot agree on something, because their world’s do not mesh, then it looks like fighting, and it feels like fighting, because no progress can come of it, no understanding of the other’s point of view.
            Jim thinks my experiences can be invalidated because I was stoned both times I had them. Yes, LSD is a drug, but it does not mean you are unable to comprehend or trust what you are experiencing. LSD does not change your brain, it heightens what your brain is capable of accomplishing. I recognized that the very first time I tried it. And with each successive use, I trained my brain to see just a little bit better, to reach higher understandings. This is something people who have never done LSD cannot understand, and not all those who used it were aware of. Those people who undestood this were able to make use of it. Then there were those people who made different choices after reaching the higher heights. Some of them chose to move on, they abandoned their bodies, and chose to reincarnate. Some got there without warning, and could not cope with their surroundings. I can only guess at what happened to them, but a lot of people ended up in mental health wards, committed by their parents who believed they were insane. For those who chose to reincarnate while having a perfectly good body here, their bodies became spiritless vegetables as we called them. There was no guiding force left in their bodies. And then there were people like me, who chose to return to our bodies, and go on living as we had been. But that was impossible, because our experiences had changed us dramatically. All this happened at levels impossible for those who never experienced LSD to understand, and for those who never used LSD to heighten their brain function to accept. While LSD is a physical material, and it acts on the physical brain, it is not a physical experience. It is not an emotional experience. It is not a mental experience. That leaves a spiritual experience, according to things like medicine wheels, which exist all over the earth, and are not exactly the same, but are so similar as to be eerie, another thing right up your alley, Lander. They are too similar to be coincidences.
            Almost all Medicine Wheels are made of quadrants, often with a definite centre. Translated into English from their original languages, those equal quadrants designate the physical, emotional, mental or intellectual, and the spritual. Those that have centers call them many things, from inner being to me to centre to learning, but what they all boil down to is the spirit that is our core being.A few medicine wheels even start with an outer perimeter of spirituality, so that the spirit not only exists at the core, but is what gives everything else purpose. Is it I understand this because I am half native Canadian so I was brought up to feel my spirit? I was actually brought up to be white, to ignore whatever I felt inside me. No, it is because I am aware of my spirit as an actual part of my being.

            Does this help any Lander?Jim? I am not fighting either of you, or anyone else, personally, but I am fighting materialism, And I am fighting to be accepted for who I am, just like all of you want to be accepted for who you are. I’ll go so far as to change accept to respect. My experiences are as real to me as your experiences are real to you, and they cannot be ignored just because they were the result of certain chemical reactions. Jim says all things in the brain are chemical reactions, and he may be right, to a point. Everything may start with a chemical reaction, but that is just the catalyst. What happens once the reaction starts is something altogether different from what it starts out to be. Scientific minds should be able to understand that.
            Just like material things may be merely collected electrons, and they might be everywhere, but there are how many elements on the Periodic Table. And how many compounds can be made from those elements, from those electrons. THINGS are more than the sum of their parts. WE are more than the sum of our parts. I am more than the sum of my parts, and that is what I am fighting for–to be acknowledged as real.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. You Stated — “Long time no hear from you, Lander.”

              My Response — I up rooted and moved to a new city and new job. You know how it is… have to eat and all that.

              You Stated — “…book, written in 1968…the President of the USA was not only black, but O-b-a-m..”

              My Response — Oo. Now I’m excited. You have to share this kind of gold with me sooner. I didn’t know anything about this book. Thank You!!

              And to add to the serendipity, I was born in 1968 Oo. There may be some spirit action going on here.

              You Stated — “I beg to differ, we do not actually see photons, but we see the effects of masses of them.”

              My Response — I would agree but if we are going to be more granular… we never see them, we just interpret electrical signals from a collision point.

              You Stated — “We see their accumulative effect, yes. We do not see the items themselves.”

              My Response — I would agree but… technically we are also an accumulative effect and made of the exact same material no less. Our reality is even more complex and impossible.

              You Stated — “I think you are helping prove my argument about spirit.”

              My Response — Or you are supplementing mine… hard to say… we need more data 😉

              You Stated — “Here is an experiment to try…”

              My Response — I’m aware of those experiments… they were very interesting. There are more advanced experiments happening now using different methods with the human mind.

              You Stated — “I have been decrying this for years. There is no one word in English that describes what I mean by spirit.”

              My Response — If I were to guess, I would say that waveform is spirit. It’s basically what everything is made of when not observed. Once observed it’s a light or sound function. That’s my 2 cents on it.

              You Stated — “I am not fighting anyone… because no progress can come of it, no understanding of the other’s point of view”

              My Response — I agree. I just ask questions and take notes. I don’t take the position of being right but rather being hungry to hear outside of my own understanding. That’s the place where I learn the most.

              You Stated — “Jim thinks my experiences can be invalidated because I was stoned both times I had them.”

              My Response — I think LSD is a valid mental enhancer to produce data but only for the individual. It hasn’t to date offered any data that’s of practical use for the general populous. I have never used it myself (for the record).

              If we could use it and access a place that provided information like cures, or major events, etc., then we could give LSD more value.

              You Stated — “like medicine wheels”

              My Response — You are spitting fire today Oo. I will look this up also, thanks.

              You Asked — “Does this help any Lander?”

              My Response — Very helpful, thanks 😀

              You Stated — “Jim says all things in the brain are chemical reactions”

              My Response — He is right on one level but the brain is also composed of particles of energy on a much smaller level. That energy is effected by many things such as background radiation, vibration and various light bandwidths. There could easily be more happening with the brain past chemical and past our current ability to detect.

              You Stated — “THINGS are more than the sum of their parts. WE are more than the sum of our parts. I am more than the sum of my parts, and that is what I am fighting for–to be acknowledged as real.”

              My Response — Well said!!

              Liked by 2 people

            2. Thank you. I had no idea you had moved. I hope you are happier now tha you were before, or at least, receiving different but positive e energy.

              However, there is at least one thing I would like to add to my last comment, for my benefit at least. You didn’t as,a question that would allow me to give this answer, and it was only afterwards I thought of it. Both you and Jim are high on science, and the truths it appears to provide (my words, not yours!). I use science as a tool, but I do not trust it. There is only so much science can do, only a finite number of facts to discover. There is no limit to my imagination, except my own ability to imagine. And the more I do imagine, the more I see as possible. (This is not a brag, just a fact,)
              What I’m saying is science does not limit my imagination, I guess.
              About Stand on Zanzibar, I read it when it first came out, and many times in the following decade. John Brunner was a favourite author. But then life changed and I moved on. It wasn’t until this year I found free copy on Kindle, so I bought it, and started to read it. I could not believe what I was reading, lol. But I don’t read as fast as I used to. Maybe this ameliorates my excitement too.

              Liked by 2 people

            3. The positive energy is in abundance here.

              You Stated — “I use science as a tool, but I do not trust it… What I’m saying is science does not limit my imagination, I guess.”

              My Response — Science is literally just, recorded observation. Anything that repeats itself in nature is observed, documented and then (for lack of a better word) exploited. I do not mean this in a negative sense but rather as a process to refine and make practical use of.

              There is no need to trust or fear science since it has no agency. What people do with refined materials or processes that can strip a forest bare to gain a buck is a whole different matter.

              I made a quote once:

              “Philosophy is nothing more than opinion, science is nothing more than observation and religion is nothing more than history. Once you understand this you can have a better conversation.”

              Let you imagination run free, I sometimes let mine run free for hours at a time.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. True, science is just a word, used by humans to describe what humans encounter. It was to repeat an observation that I twice visited the realm of spirituality. And twice I got there. Observing oneself is not generally tolerated by those who practise science, but in this case, I was the experiment, as well as the observer. Twice seen, the result is considered evidence, even if only by me.
              But philosophy, just opinion? Especially in Kant’s case, I agree. Having lived my philosophy, not just thought it, I have to beg to differ, in special circumstances.

              Liked by 2 people

            5. You Stated — “Twice seen, the result is considered evidence, even if only by me.”

              My Response — I’m curious… what do you make of these two short poems I wrote?

              https://realitydecoded.blog/2019/02/14/other-me-i-see/

              https://realitydecoded.blog/2020/08/24/poem-should-he-wake/

              You Stated — “But philosophy, just opinion?… I have to beg to differ, in special circumstances.”

              My Response — That’s the rub, no matter what you experience (profound, eye opening, and enlightening as it may be), it means nothing to those who have not experienced it.

              This is how the universe is, your experience is real, but to anyone who is not you, it’s just an opinion (As well it should be). People should have their own encounter before going down that road, it’s a personal experience.

              “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. “Marcus Aurelius”

              We are limited (in respect to each other) by the experiences we Share. The experiences we do not share cannot be articulated in a satisfying and convincing way to others.

              They can only be accepted as perspective or opinion. If someone try’s to force it on you then it becomes “Conflict”, dissonance between separate individuals in the absence of a shared experience.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. It may be just my opinion of the word opinion but someone’s experience, no matter how badly described, is worth something more than just opinion. Having been told for 50 plus years my experiences did not count, I tend to give more value to what someone told me they experienced, as opposed to knowledge presented as scientific fact.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. There is an exception to the rule: If people have similar experiences then there is room for mass observation. It’s still not repeatable and thus cannot be verified by science but is verifiable via other direct experiences by individuals.

              To be clear, it’s better for the world not to believe something without repeatable verification, proof or direct evidence.

              It’s also better for individuals to pursue extraordinary experiences once they encounter them. It often provides profound insight and possibly avoids disastrous events.

              Like this one as an example:
              https://realitydecoded.blog/2019/07/22/philip-k-dick-got-information-from-the-future-and-used-it-to-save-his-sons-life/

              We do not live in a “One size fits all” world.

              The only true danger is any single ideology trying to FORCE it’s perspective on a population. That’s when things go downhill.

              Your experiences are real for you and they may or may not lead to something great. My experiences are the same. There are those on the Left and Right who try to shame individuals for not conforming to tribal culture, often using abusive tactics, but a strong mind can resist.

              Liked by 1 person

            8. The thing is, Alex, I did repeat my experience, about 10 days after the first event. This one I can even give you an exact date for, July 19, 1969. I know, because I consider it my 3rd birth date, though I do not celebrate it. My body was born in 1949. My first NDE, and the date of opening my mind, is about July 9, 1969. My second NDE, where I mostly gained knowledge of my spirit happened on the date given above, sometime in the wee hours after midnight. I have had my horoscope done for my actual birthdate, and it is quite mysterious. My Tarot cards always come out indefinite, ambiguous. I guess I should really have my horoscope done for my newest date, but I never thought about it before. And I no longer know anyone who does horoscopes.

              Liked by 1 person

            9. Very interesting.

              I had an NDE once and it was strange because after that date (about two weeks in) when I returned to work, I didn’t feel like a different person but all my stress was gone.

              I was still at the same stressful job, working with the same stressful people but I didn’t feel like they were doing anything stressful or that the work was stressful. I couldn’t figure out why I had thought it was so stressful before.

              I was actually more productive since my mind was no longer distracted. I started focusing more on my creativity and curiosity rather than on my deadlines and approval rating. This caused a big boost to my career.

              I think I just lost interest in what people in the office were talking about or doing. It seemed like they were just repeating the same day over and over. I was becoming bored with normal day to day stuff. I had to feed myself with more complex challenges.

              The world is just so fascinating and I want to hear what other people are experiencing.

              Strange life we live

              Liked by 1 person

            10. Oftentimes I think we allow the world/people around us to become part of ourselves. It’s sometimes (frequently?) a good idea to step outside the circle, so to speak, and simply let things happen as they may.

              Liked by 2 people

  10. Hey, Jim, as to your slogan that reincarnation suggests memory and consciousness exist independent of the brain, it only suggests that in a narrow view of reincarnation.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Einstein posited that energy and matter were equivalent and there is a conservation, not destruction. They change back and forth, but don’t disappear.

    I don’t think the evidence, if borne out under scrutiny, suggests reincarnation at all. But perhaps some of that mental energy of a dying pilot is still floating around out there.

    The matter that makes up your body now is not the same matter you were born with. But you are still you. What did the matter you had in your younger days do out in the universe after it left your body?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. What facts are you talking about? The fact that even the greatest of all physicists haven’t been able to pin it down to me, seems a little odd that us lay atheists no more than they do about the nature of reality.

      Like

  12. “hard atheism”

    atheism: lack of belief in gods

    Nothing hard about that. It’s your natural state at birth until you’re indoctrinated to think otherwise — as are all the other societal beliefs you adopt at face value without evidence.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Well Ron, most atheist don’t allow for anything extra. Only cold hard facts of cradle to grave matter. So what of the evidence for reincarnation? It doesn’t require a god, but there is quite a bit of evidence that data is reintroduced and exists outside of the brain. That mind may be more than just neurons. You?

      Like

      1. You’re. Still. Not. Getting. It.

        Atheism addresses only one topic: belief (or rather lack thereof) in gods.

        It does not concern itself with belief in other things; so you can still hold belief in things like: black magic, magic crystals, ESP, reincarnation, voodoo, pixies, fairies, werewolves, Xenu, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, mood rings, Feng Shui, etc.

        Like

        1. I’m asking you specifically to add some thoughts on where or how the mind and memory are being passed around after death. Specifically reincarnation?
          I get it just fine. I’m merely asking what appears to be evidence that makes you uncomfortable, or you would address it other than “magic” and “voodoo” and “crystals”.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Nothing about it makes me uncomfortable. I’m merely saying that being an atheist does not automatically rule out believing in other things.

            As to your question: What evidence is there for reincarnation? All you have is the say-so of the boy’s parents, who could have fabricated the entire thing.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. What exactly should I look at? People make all sorts of claims, but claims by themselves do not constitute evidence of the thing being claimed. Otherwise, we’d have to accept the claims of those who insist they receive special messages from their god(s) and deceased relatives.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. You’ve verified the boy is the reincarnation of a former WW2 fighter pilot? How’d you go about that?

              Like

            3. Do you trust scientific inquiry? I’m simply intrigued that his and others story are so in depth with obscure facts. There are many others. Of course I haven’t met him or traveled to investigate this on my own. But there are skeptical researchers who don’t have another explanation for it.
              What I like about this is you have so much bias you won’t even look at the evidence.

              Like

            4. HOWEVER … one definition for evidence is thus: Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief.

              So it seems to me, it still boils down to “belief” (or disbelief) … which is the common denominator in religious circles.

              Liked by 3 people

            5. Apparently it is a common denominator in scientific circles as well based on Ron’s standard. Has he personally verified every scientific claim? Of course not.
              I remember as a believer being unwilling to consider evidence that was contrary to my anchoring biases. This reminds me of that.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. The main difference is that scientific claims are based onempirical data, not “god-of-the-gaps” and “gee-whiz, there’s no other explanation” arguments — a point I’ve made repeatedly in all many of my comments on various blogs, including this one.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. I didn’t mean for this to be so upsetting for you. I provided a link and a Netflix episode and a couple of questions. That’s all. I’m curious that maybe someone has an explanation. See, with consciousness there is no real empirical evidence but experience. Maybe you have an explanation, maybe not. god-of-the-gaps” and “gee-whiz wasn’t part of my questioning at all. I employed no hocus pocus, but this phenomenon is a part of our natural world.

              Like

            8. I’m not in the least bit upset. I’m simply pointing out that atheism’s only requirement is a lack of belief in gods (no more, no less); and that:

              – claims alone;
              – an “argument” for a claim;
              – emotional appeals; and
              – expressions of awe and wonder

              . . . do not constitute not empirical evidence.

              Nor am I arguing for or against the “reincarnation hypothesis”. I’m merely saying that no one has produced empirical evidence — such as the results of and in-depth investigation adhering to slightly more rigorous and exacting standards than found in an ABC news article or Netflix episode — to support of the claim.

              Liked by 1 person

            9. These were just a couple of recent highlights. Over the last 50 years it has been researched and documented by the university of Virginia.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
              Since his death the program continues.
              I’m certainly not going to copy and past extensive links for you when you have your own computer, I’m sure.

              Like

            10. So upon further investigation, here’s what I dug up:

              1) From the USS NATOMA BAY (CVE 62) Logbook Project:

              HISTORY OF COMPOSITE SQUADRON EIGHTY ONE (VC 81)

              [. . .] “On 14 Sept. 1944 VC 81 was ordered aboard the parent carrier, USS Natoma Bay (CVE 62), with 18 FM-2’s and 12 TBM-1c’s.”

              IWO JIMA OPERATION

              “The 16th day at Iwo Jima, 3 Mar. 1945, was eventful. It opened with a strike on a reported concentration of large enemy transports at Chichi Jima. Eight FM-2′ s from this squadron participated in the attack. They made three attacks; on the first firing rockets at the shipping and on the second and third attacking AA positions to protect the torpedo bombers which were following. The shipping was identified as one medium transport vessel and small FTC class freighters. Damage was observed. On the first attack as the fighters were retiring toward the entrance to Futami Harbor, The FM-2 piloted by Lt.(jg) Huston was apparently hit by AA fire. The plane went into a 45° dive and crashed into the water just inside the harbor. It exploded on impact and there was no survivor or wreckage afloat. He was one of the squadron’s better pilots. He was quiet and unassuming, always alert and his keen eyes tally-hoed everything within sight. He was always the first to sight aircraft and shipping; he tally-hoed the only submarine sighted by the squadron. He was credited with the destruction of four airborne enemy aircraft.”

              https://natomabaycve62.org/logbook/VC81.html

              IOW, the squadron (VC 81, of which Lt. Huston was a crew member) assigned to the ship was equipped with Grumman FM-2 Wildcats (the plane he was shot down in) and TBM-1C Avengers — not Vought Corsairs.

              2) An ABC News interview in which the father recalled his 22-month-old son’s fixation with WWII aircraft while visiting an aviation museum.

              So the more plausible explanation is that James picked up these “memories” from his museum visit and his anxious parents, rather than an actual reincarnation experience.

              Liked by 2 people

            11. This discrepancy was covered in the details of the documentary as well. He had flown Corsairs prior to the other plane.
              It’s a funny thing about memory. My brother and I grew up in the same household, but to listen to him talk about our childhood makes me wonder if I was even there. Gets a little fuzzy sometimes.
              I wonder if each of these points could be dismantled. The names, the friends, the dolls with exact names of other crewmen that had died, the Notoma reunion where the boy fooled his old shipmates. It seems there had to be a lot of cooperation for this to be a hoax, but I’ll give you a point for this one.

              Like

            12. This “reincarnation” story is just like so many other things that can’t actually be “proven.” It pretty much boils down to what a person wants to believe.

              Liked by 2 people

            13. How many details would you consider enough detail to at least make you wonder. The theory of the data stream or Integrated Information Theory have some credible coincidences that make ya wonder.

              Like

            14. This is just me talking, but I tend to lean skeptical about certain things. As an example, this story. For me to accept it as fact, it would take more than just reading about it. I would want to sit down with the individual(s) and be able to ask questions. Their answers would have to satisfy me, personally, before I would give it credibility.

              I do have personal beliefs about things that others may consider “wishy-washy,” but I think that’s common for most of us. Some things make it through, some don’t. In any event, it’s fun/challenging to study and learn. Agree?

              Liked by 1 person

            15. I agree. I remember a lady 20 years ago that wrote a book called closer to the light. She died an the operating table and had a near death experience that paralleled my religious beliefs at the time. My wife at the time was so addicted to this account and the “proof” it offered our faith. So I began investigating. The internet was pretty new at the time, but after she sold millions of copies it turned out she had never been in surgery and the hospital didn’t exist. It’s amazing the lengths people will go to make a buck.
              Not sure if you saw the Marty Martyn piece, but there are too many details to ignore, IF it’s true.

              Like

            16. Forgetting which plane you were flying when shot down in battle seems mighty strange — don’t you think? And it’s stranger still when the boy’s father cites it was the key factor leading to his ivestigation of downed WWII fighter pilots.

              I agree that memories are often faulty. Like yourself, I listened to a conversation between my mother and aunt in which practically every detail of a bygone event they had attended was in dispute, save for the occurence of the event itself.

              As any police investigator or legal atorney will tell you, eyewitness testimony is frequently unreliable, and even less so when the information was extracted via leading questions. By the father’s own admission, he and his very enthusiastic son spent over three hours touring the museum. So perhaps his extremely enthusiastic toddler managed to squirel away details about planes and battles and navel vessels his slightly less-interested father promptly forgot about or paid little attention to at the time.

              Or perhaps his parents planted those memories into his head through suggestive questioning? In one interview, the boy’s mother jumped in to answer questions that were directed specifically towards her son; which left me wondering why she felt it necessary to interjet on his behalf, or why the interviewer didn’t call her out on it.

              Or perhaps they made it up the whole thing for fame and attention, because they later wrote a book about it.

              And these are only some of the possibilities that spring immediately to mind — all of which seem way more plausible (at least to me) than the incredulous reincarnation claim being made.

              Liked by 2 people

            17. “What I like about this is you have so much bias you won’t even look at the evidence.”

              Hmmm. Where have I heard that before? 🙂

              I utilize the scientific method:

              – Observation
              – Question
              – Hypothesis
              – Experiment
              – Results
              – Conclusion

              https://biologydictionary.net/scientific-method

              So until you present actual evidence following those guidelines, there’s little for me to examine.

              Liked by 2 people

            18. That is just one instance, Ron, but thank you for your opinion on what atheists can or cannot believe.
              I am an atheist; I believe in unending existence. I do not believe in continuous consciousness in that the ego is maintained beyond the veil of death. Brain and mind cannot go where only spirit lives.

              Liked by 1 person

            19. What part of my comment was opinion? Because the the words “atheist” and “atheism” are English derivatives of the Greek word atheos, which literally means “without a god”.

              https://www.etymonline.com/word/atheist

              So by extension, the only thing that atheists have in common is their lack of belief in gods — much like the only thing that non-conformists have in common is their lack of conformity.

              Liked by 1 person

            20. I’m not talking about atheism being a mere non-beli3f in God, gods, or superior or Supreme beings. From the theistic point-of-view, atheists are just another group like them, a bunch of people believing the same thing. I try to tell them we are all armies of one, each having come to atheism on our own, in our own ways, but they cannot conceive of such a thing.
              And there are the new atheists who want us to all believe the same thing so they can be a group too. They still find safety in numbers. I am not saying they are wrong to want that, but I do not think it can ever happen.
              I used the word opinion just to differentiate you from those new atheists. We, you, I, others, may know how we live, why we do not share anything but the non-existence of said gods. New atheists deny me as being atheist. To them, individuality is just an opinion. If it makes them happy, I let them think that.

              Liked by 1 person

        2. To quote tildeb “There IS no mind/body divide. Mind is what the body does; I understand my consciousness is an emergent property of my biology”. Is reincarnation then Oogity Boogity, in spite of the evidence?

          Liked by 1 person

  13. A good friend of mine — Dr Bob Rich — is utterly convinced that reincarnation is based in fact. He has pointed me to a series of YouTube videos that he says provide evidence for it. I have yet to watch them; they’re on my ‘to-do’ list. I have to admit that I’m as intrigued as the next person by the thought that there is a continuation of consciousness beyond the pale. That our current scientific understanding does not encompass it is not, of itself, proof that it’s nonsense.

    I’ll find out, one day, one way or another 😉

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Maybe you’ll find out, but when you go to deep sleep for the last time and never wake up, how would you know?
      Thanks for the links. I’ll check it out.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That’s the whole point, isn’t it Jim?
        I live my life to be the best person I can learn how to be. IF I am wrong, big deal. I lost nothing. But, if I am right, then I am prepared for whatever comes next. And I do have reason to believe something comes next, whether anyone believes me or not.

        Liked by 2 people

  14. Having my own experiences, I can approach reincarnation from the spiritual side best, but there is a way I could suggest that memories could pass from period to period. The series of posts I am working through right now about cells gives us a clue. Now, this is only a working theory, and don’t ask me to explain how it could go from there to here, but consider that each cell in our body is a living being, on all its own. And some cells reproduce by mitosis, producing exact copes of itself. It is conceivable, at least by me that a brain cell from one person could reproduce itself over and over, always keeping the same information in it, and somehow, beyond even my ability to imagine this, end up in the brain of someone else. The odds are a gazillion gazillion gazillion to one, and if this was to happen on two different planets I would say it would be impossible, but on the same planet, it really could happen. Improbable, yes, but not impossible. So the memories held in one brain cell that ends up in another brain could be read by the new brain.
    I wrote a post a while back of having a cell in my brain that harkened back to a cell that existed in the primordial soup over 4 billion years ago. How did that happen? Sure, I’m insane. But no sane insane person would ever even think they could imagine such a thing. I did not imagine it. It just popped up one day and said, “Look at me! I’m right here!” Is that any different from this kid remembering a bunch of stuff from someone who lived just 40 or so years earlier? Not to me it’s not.
    Having said that, in my understanding of reincarnation, no, we do not bring memories with us from incarnation to incarnation. There is no physical or even mental process involved in this, it all happens at the level of spirit, which has no connection to ego or mind, except as a philosophical concept. I have no room here to explain. But my introduction to reincarnation was visceral, if not physical. I can remember being partially absorbed into a pool of spiritual goop, before ripping myself back out, twice. No need to again explore the possibilities or impossibilities of that, Jim, just accept it for what it is, please. I have gone places most people cannot even imagine.
    And I did experience, was able to experience, a certain cell in my brain that claimed to be a direct descendent of one of the first living cells to inhabit this earth.
    My brain is now hardwired to be aware of things far beyond normal understanding. I can only attribute that to my teenage experiences. Nothing else in my life could have rewired my brain in just such ways.
    And now you are privy to the real expanse of my being.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I understand what you are trying to say, but these cases were mere decades apart with no genealogy linking the two. They aren’t related unless you go way back before the war.

      Like

      1. Do they have to be knowingly related? Things happen, secrets are kept. But as I said, I’m just presenting a possibility that it would not be wrong to consider? And, does anyone have a better explanation? Probably not.

        Like

    2. Dear rawgod,
      Whether or not your long comment is (meant to be) serious or facetious, it is unfortunately quite problematic and unscientific.

      In any case, I appreciate its significance to your (existential) being.

      Dear Jim,
      I have been and am still far too busy, and my visit here is indeed a LUXURY!

      Happy July to both of you!

      Liked by 1 person

  15. I read a couple of books by a guy who researched reincarnation events. Many of the stories were compelling. But they were almost all second-hand, so … I wonder. Most of those who believe reincarnation is areal thing believe that we don’t get reincarnated with memories. Most of the cases were of those who had memories they were not supposed to have. If memories can leak through, how? There are way to many questions not yet answered for this to be a believable claim.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I don’t really care if they believe this or that about reincarnation. What we’re looking at is evidence—that data at least, is trading hands outside the brain.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Perhaps “reincarnation” is not a good word to use related to such cases since it carries a pre-conceived meaning?

        Many (including myself) believe that our energy (spirit?) is reabsorbed into the universe at death. Could cognitive content be included and thus be imbibed by a future human? Hmmm.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: